
CopigM . 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSE 



Washington and 
Lincoln 

Leaders of the Nation in the Constitutional Eras 
of American History 

By 
Robert W. McLaughlin 



With Portraits 



G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York and London 

tTbe ftnickerbocfter Press 

1912 



tft 



Copyright. 1912 

BV 

Robert w. Mclaughlin 



TEbe ttnfclierbocbcr iprces. Hew B?orft 






gCLA327098 



o 

00 

c Preface 

The writer has tried to do in this book what he 
believes needs to be done in some book. In sup- 
port of this belief, he would direct attention to the 
following facts: No one else has attempted to es- 
tablish the relation of those great leaders in gov- 
ernment, — Washington and Lincoln. It is true 
that the shelves in the libraries are groaning under 
the burden of books with titles bearing one or both 
of these names. Some of these books are bio- 
graphical. Others are descriptive of the political 
conditions in a given era, with the one or the other 
leader as the dominant personality. Still others 
relate the leaders through a study of personal traits 
of character. But, curiously, among all the books, 
there is not one which attempts to relate these great 
men through governmental action and theory. 

Again, there is a widespread and growing inter- 
est in the theories of government. This interest, 
though world wide, is nowhere more marked than 
in the United States. At no time in our history 
as a nation have more people been interested in 
governmental problems than to-day. This deep- 



iv Preface 

rooted and growing interest may easily be missed 
by the casual observer. The French gentleman 
who came to fight for America in the Revolution, 
might to-day, as he did in 1777, write home in 
disgust, that there was more enthusiasm for 
La Liberte in a single cafe in Paris, than there was 
in the whole of America. But he would be mis- 
taken now as he was then. Because of this inter- 
est, it is reasonable to suppose that the need 
exists for a study, having as its aim, the tracing of 
the relation between the nations, two supremely 
great workers in government. 

Further, this need is emphasised, when it is 
noted, that in the present unusual interest in 
government, the outstanding fact is the frequency 
with which the names of Washington and Lincoln 
are used. The reader has but to glance through 
the articles written by the publicists of the day to 
discover how true this is. For there is a conviction 
which deepens with the years, that the two 
"Fathers" mastered the ideas that constitute 
the basis of our national structure. 

This suggests another fact, namely, the vast 
amount of literature which must be examined in 
order to establish the relation between these two 
workers in government. Doubtless there are 
many who, with insistent demands in other 



Preface v 

directions, or with the literature largely inacces- 
sible, would be glad to have at their disposal the 
result of such an examination. The men, who, 
because of their public relation to the community, 
are frequently called upon to speak or write on 
Washington or Lincoln, constitute a considerable 
number. The writer cherishes the hope, that per- 
haps he has rendered these public units in the 
nation's life some service in the pages that follow. 

That the literature of the subject bulks large is 
evident, when it is remembered that the examina- 
tion must be made in at least three directions. 
First, a bird's eye view of the landscape of Ameri- 
can history must be had. It is as true in history, 
as in nature, that a sense of unity comes through 
the large, not the detached view. Second, the 
stream of constitutional development as it flows 
across the landscape must be traced, in order to 
detect that which is distinctly governmental, and 
at the same time note the changes taking place. 
Third, an interpretation must be made of the work 
of each leader, as he stood in his place upon the 
bank of the stream of constitutional development, 
with the landscape of the general history as a 
background. 

In making this examination the writer has made 
the original sources the basis of his study. In some 



VI 



Preface 



instances this has not been altogether possible. 
In others, where the secondary sources have been 
of unusual merit, he has gladly used them. But 
in all he has kept in mind the words of the Boston 
divine, Thomas Prince, who in 1702 said: "I 
would not take the least iota upon trust, if pos- 
sible, " and, " I cite my vouchers to every passage. " 
It only remains in sending forth these pages 
to acknowledge gratefully the assistance rendered. 
This assistance has come from so many, that 
detailed mention is impossible. However, the 
unfailing courtesy of the officials in charge of the 
great collections of historical material at Columbia 
University, the University of California, and the 
New York and Brooklyn Public Libraries, should 
be noted. The writer desires to mention the 
scholarly head of the department of history at 
the University of Chicago, Andrew C. McLaugh- 
lin, who in the early stages of this work, called 
attention to valuable channels of information. 
To these names, should be added, those of Frank 
Hugh Foster, and Albert T. Swing, distinguished 
teachers of history, whose comments have been 
generous, discriminating, helpful, and always 

kindly. 

R. W. McL. 

Brooklyn, New York, 
April 10, 1912. 



Contents 



Introduction 


PAGE 

I 


The Parliamentary Era 


12 


The Revolutionary Era . 


42 


The Constitutional Era . 


83 


The National Era .... 


132 


The Civil War Era .... 


173 


The Relation 


221 


Index ....... 


• 265 



Illustrations 



George Washington . . . Frontispiece 

From the painting by Rembrandt Peale. Reproduced 
by permission of C. Klackner, N. Y. Copyright, 1894 

Daniel Webster . . . . .132 

From an etching by T. Johnson 

Abraham Lincoln . . . . .174 

From a drawing from life by F. B. Carpenter 



Washington and Lincoln 



Introduction 

The relation of Washington and Lincoln may- 
be assumed. By some subtle law of historic gravi- 
tation they coalesce. Think of one and you think 
of the other. Begin by measuring one, and you 
end by measuring the other. However, it is one 
thing to assume the relation, and another to 
explain it. A study of the subject shows that the 
usual method by which the relation is explained is 
that of comparison. A sort of composite, rough 
crayon study in black and white is given; the 
contrasts in black, on a background of similarities 
in white. 

Washington is seen with silver buckles on his 
shoes, buff trimmings on his coat, a service or 
dress sword by his side, his hair powdered and 
clubbed behind, an ample mansion to live in, a 
mahogany table with Madeira and walnuts, 
and a coach and four at the door. 



2 Washington and Lincoln 

Lincoln is seen with deerskin breeches, a coon- 
skin cap, an axe buried in the tree, a humble cabin 
in the clearing, later a modest frame house in the 
village, a linen duster on his back as he sits behind 
the jogging horse on the prairie road, a grey shawl 
over his shoulders, and a tall plug hat on his head 
as he walks down the line of soldiers. 

Both are elemental in their greatness, being 
essentially simple, honest, fearless, and patriotic. 
But Washington is tall, solemn, haughty, and 
rich — an aristocrat. Lincoln is gaunt, humorous, 
genial, and poor — a democrat. Such are the 
contrasts and similarities. 

But such a study in black and white, though 
substantially accurate, leaves something to be 
desired, as an explanation of the relation. The 
tang of history is here. The reader can almost 
taste the walnuts on the smooth mahogany of 
Washington's table, and catch the delicious odour 
of the green wood, as Lincoln opens the tree with 
his axe. But how comes it that he is reading about 
these trivial yet interesting things? The answer 
is, because such things are connected with the 
work which these men did. History is not primar- 
ily a description of men, but a record of men's 
achievements. And its achievements are not 
recorded because its men have been described, 



Introduction 3 

but its men are described because their achieve- 
ments have been recorded. 

Draw a picture of Lincoln with the grey shawl, 
and the tall hat rubbed the wrong way, if you 
will, but the reader will notice the picture because 
under the hat there is a brain, and beneath the 
shawl there is a heart, which working in unison 
write the Emancipation Proclamation. Describe 
Washington in the blue uniform, with buff trim- 
mings, and sword by his side, and these will 
attract, because a great man wears them, as he 
rides forth to take command of the little army 
around Boston. 

The important thing is the work, and the deeper 
relations of history are explained by an examina- 
tion of the work, not by a description of the work- 
man. A favourite dictum in these days is, "bi- 
ography is history." And the dictum is a true 
one, if not pushed too far. But it needs to be 
balanced by another, namely, "history is philo- 
sophy." Through the biographical, history be- 
comes picturesque; through the philosophical, 
history becomes significant. This does not mean 
that the one aspect of history is distinct from the 
other. 

The student cannot go very far in the biograph- 
ical study of Washington without coming upon the 



4 Washington and Lincoln 

philosophical. Neither can he go very far in the 
philosophical study of Lincoln without coming 
upon the biographical. It is for him to decide 
whether the emphasis shall be placed upon one or 
the other. In this study it is placed upon the 
philosophical, that is, upon the work, because the 
aim is to explain the relation of the workers. 
Bacon's words are accepted: "Be the workmen 
what they may be, let us speak of the work: that 
is, the true greatness of kingdoms and estates, 
and the means thereof. " 

In seeking to explain the relation of Washington 
and Lincoln, the student may be guided in the 
selection of the work for examination, by three 
facts: First, the work should be commensurate 
with the greatness of the workmen. Second, the 
work examined should be sufficiently alike to make 
possible a comparison. Third, the work should 
be examined under the law of development. 

These men were supremely great in the field of 
endeavour. History has settled this and the 
account is closed. They come together on the 
higher level of exceptional effort, rather than on 
the lower level of ordinary attainment. Washing- 
ton as a country gentleman did much painstaking 
work on his plantation at Mount Vernon. He 
mounted his horse and rode over his fields. He 



Introduction 5 

checked the invoices from his London agent. 
Lincoln in early manhood worked in a village store 
at New Salem. He weighed groceries, and some- 
times ran down the road to overtake customers 
and rectify mistakes. All this makes interesting 
reading, and goes to make up the sum total of our 
mental pictures of their personalities. But it has 
no value in such a study as this, for as work, it is 
not of enough magnitude to furnish an adequate 
revelation of the ample powers of the workmen. 

Washington was a great general. His retreat 
across New Jersey was masterly, and students of 
strategy and tactics study it to-day, as one of the 
unusual feats of war. Lincoln was an able lawyer, 
with a brilliant career on the circuit of Illinois, and 
his method in convincing a jury is of unending 
interest to legal minds. Lincoln as a lawyer, 
and Washington as a general would, apart from 
any other claim, have a secure place in American 
history. But each would have no relation to the 
other in our history, because such work is not 
comparable. 

These men lived in different centuries. And the 
years which separate them are the most transform- 
ing known to history, as regards their country. 
One came from a region which the other never saw. 
About the time that Washington was girding his 



6 Washington and Lincoln 

loins for his supreme work in government, Monroe, 
who later was President, returned from a trip 
into the West and said : 

A great part of the territory is miserably poor, 
especially that near the lakes Michigan and Erie. 
And that upon the Mississippi and the Illinois con- 
sists of extensive plains which have not had from 
appearances and will not have a single bush on them 
for ages. * 

Yet from this region Lincoln came. And when 
he appeared to do his mighty work in government, 
this region was the garden spot of the continent. 
This may be taken as an illustration of the changes 
which came in area, population, wealth, customs, 
and laws. The nation of the middle of the 
nineteenth century was the nation of the last 
quarter of the eighteenth century and yet it was 
another nation. It was like a river, which begin- 
ning in the hills as a spring, tumbles down the 
rocks to the plains, there to deepen and widen its 
channel, until it bears upon its bosom the tangled 
spars of commerce, and waters upon its banks the 
growing cities of civilisation. Lincoln worked 
well down the stream of our history. This fact 
should not be forgotten. 

The work thsn, should be commensurate with 

1 Writings of James Monroe, Hamilton Ed., vol. i., p. 117. 



Introduction 7 

the greatness of the workmen, and sufficiently 
alike to make possible a comparison. And this 
raises the question, whether it is possible to find 
such work, which, when examined, will show the 
relation? 

At the outset the reader will meet with two con- 
ditions of great importance. One is, that Ameri- 
can history is always in the open. The metaphor 
of the stream usually pictures the river as losing 
itself in the marsh lands, only to reappear and 
flow on. But there is no place in our history for 
the marshes, with tall grasses and spongy soil. 
The stream is always in sight, even though the 
current runs with varying force. 

In this respect, American history is peculiar. 
Statesmen are compelled to speak of the English 
Constitution as that "subtle organism." His- 
torians lose themselves in the mists, when in 
working back, they try to trace the origins of 
European nations. The clouds of mythology are 
always playing around the mountain tops on 
which the nations began. But not so with the 
United States. The ringing of the old liberty 
bell can almost be heard as its sounds careen on 
the waves of the Atlantic, and reverberate upon 
the shore of England. The rooms in which the 
Declaration of Independence and the Constitu- 



8 Washington and Lincoln 

tion were written may be visited. Original 
manuscripts are in existence; debates and con- 
troversies are matter of record. And what is 
true of the beginning is also true of the subsequent 
history. A writer, commenting upon this says: 
"If we choose to look we can see the founders of 
the tradition at work like bees in a glass hive, 
industrious and ungrudging. From Washington 
to Lincoln there is no obscurity anywhere." 1 
This openness of our history gives the student a 
decided advantage in his research. 

The second condition is, that American history 
is periodic in its manifestation. The English 
writer quoted is happy in his simile of bees work- 
ing in the hive. For bees work in groups. So also 
the workers in the nation. These groups are seen 
at work in five periods: 

(i) The Parliamentary period of 1765. (2) The 
Revolutionary period of 1776. (3) The Constitu- 
tional period of 1787. (4) The National period of 
1830. (5) The Civil-War period of 1861. 

The group of 1765, while English, must be 
considered, in order to understand our history. 
For this group, with the British Empire a fact, 
due to the French war, was forced to experiment, 
and not being successful in its experiment, created 

1 Oliver, Alexander Hamilton, p. 172. 



Introduction 9 

the problem which led to the creation of the Ameri- 
can nation. The group of 1776, the first in Ameri- 
can history, was formed to make effective the 
protest against the experiments of empire made 
by the Parliamentary group. The group of 1787, 
called together because the protest in 1776 had 
been successful, formulated a plan of government 
to make permanent the results achieved. The 
group of 1830, with an expanding nation pressing 
upon it, was forced to define the government as 
formulated in 1787, which definitions made amid 
changed conditions, mark an advance in the 
theory of government. The group of 1861 was 
drawn together in order to apply the formulations 
made in 1787, and definitions given in 1830. 
Thus the five periods may be characterised by the 
five words — experiment — protest — formulation — 
definition — application. 

However, while the periods of our history differ 
as to the form which the work takes, yet they show 
an underlying likeness. Emerson said of Mon- 
taigne's writings, "Cut his pages where you will, 
and the blood comes." This is true of American 
history. Open the book where you will, and there 
is the same big, vital problem of power in govern- 
ment. The men who gathered in the British 
Parliament following the Treaty of Paris in 1763, 



io Washington and Lincoln 

had this problem. The men gathering in the 
capitol of 1861, after the fall of Sumter, also had 
this problem. And the men who gathered in 
the intervening periods of 1776, 1787, and 1830, 
had the same problem. And the relation of the 
different groups to the problem, as has been men- 
tioned, varied. With the first group it was pro- 
blem and experiment. With the last group it was 
problem and application. 

Now, with this thought of American history as 
an open record and periodic in its manifestation, 
let us return to our question, which is, whether 
it is possible to find a work done by Washington 
and Lincoln, which examined, will reveal the 
workmen and thus explain the relation? 

Certainly an examination of the work done in 
the periods of 1776 and 1787, will reveal Washing- 
ton, for, as will be shown later, he was the domi- 
nant personality in these two periods. And 
equally certain is it, that an examination of the 
work done in 1861, will reveal Lincoln, for he was 
the commanding leader in this period. And the 
work in each of these periods was such as to meet 
the conditions laid down. 

So then, to gather up into a few words the pur- 
pose and aim of the following pages: The work 
during five periods in American history will be 



Introduction 1 1 

examined to find a revelation of two master 
workmen. In the light of that revelation the 
work will be compared. This comparison will 
offer an explanation for the relation of the two 
great leaders. Washington and Lincoln will stand 
forth in the supreme task of government. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 

August i, 1774, at Williamsburg, George Wash- 
ington received his credentials as deputy to the 
First Continental Congress. As if conscious that 
their deputy was superior, the delegates from the 
counties of Virginia gave the credentials a touch 
of distinction. For these credentials alone among 
those furnished by the colonies contained the 
expression, "The security and happiness of the 
British Empire." 1 

The delegates as they gathered in the quiet 
town by the arm of the sea, doubtless cared little 
for the exact words used. They were concerned 
rather, with a clear statement of the authority 
which they wished to confer upon the one chosen 
to act for them in the following months at Phila- 
delphia. Yet in the use of this expression, as 
seen in its context, they describe by suggestion 
the movement which began with the colonial 
resistance at Boston and ended with the British 
surrender at Yorktown. 

* Journals of Congress, vol. i., p. 23. 
12 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 13 

In support of this assertion, notice the expression 
as it is placed in juxtaposition with another in the 
credentials, namely, "the present critical and 
alarming situation in the continent of North 
America." 1 The delegates believed that the 
continent and the empire were related, and that 
the security of the empire was conditioned upon 
the happiness of the continent. At this time the 
security of the whole was threatened, because the 
prosperity of the colonies was lacking. Here was 
what writers are pleased to call the centripetal and 
centrifugal forces in government. The centripetal 
tendency showed itself in the tightening grip of 
administration at the centre; the centrifugal ten- 
dency, in the growth of autonomy in the colonies. 
And the problem of this era was how to secure a 
balance of these forces. 

Washington understood this. A few days later, 
when he mounted his horse at Mt. Vernon and 
started North, having his credentials in his 
saddle-bag, he believed that the security and 
happiness of the British Empire were in jeopardy. 
He was pre-eminently a sane and cautious man. 
Never was he known to indulge in exaggerated 
statement for mere effect. He accepted the 
wording of his credentials at its face value, and 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. i., p. 23. 



14 Washington and Lincoln 

rode forward, resolved to do his part in the 
present crisis. 

The expression was vague, reflecting the thought 
of the period, for it was easy enough to speak of 
"the security and happiness of the British Em- 
pire. " But what did men mean when they spoke 
thus? Probably Washington did not know how 
much this term meant. He believed that his 
duty consisted in doing something to bring about 
a readjustment of the forces in the empire. But 
what this something was he did not know. And 
this was not strange. The period was one for 
experiments. The language of men on both sides 
of the Atlantic was in advance of their thinking. 
However, there was nothing unusual in this, for 
the momentous eras in history have never been 
explicit in verbal statement. Precise statements 
are the results, not the causes of epochal move- 
ments. The huge ship seen in the mist is none 
the less real because its spars and rigging are not 
clearly discerned. Men saw the problems of em- 
pire with a sense of reality, yet with vagueness. 

Washington as late as the following May, on his 
way to the Second Congress, paused midway on 
the Potomac River for a brief visit with Jonathan 
Boucher. And in response to a warning from his 
friend to the effect that his errand would lead to 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 15 

civil war, replied, "that if he ever heard of him 
joining in any such measures, he had his leave to 
set him down for everything wicked." 1 Yet 
within a few months Washington was convinced 
that such measures were necessary. And in 
later years Boucher never succeeded in squaring 
his remark with his action. It was not necessary. 
Washington in his day was simply typical of its 
best leadership as he moved in the direction of 
that which he did not comprehend. 

And notice also, that the expression, "the secu- 
rity and happiness of the British Empire," is 
accurate, even though vague. For a vague state- 
ment is sometimes more accurate than precise 
language. As has been suggested, Virginia alone 
used this expression. The Massachusetts Bay 
delegates, perhaps, in playing for position in the 
struggle, speak of "Great Britain and the American 
Colonies." 2 But even granting the fundamental 
contention of the colonies, the wording was in- 
accurate. At this time the colonies were theo- 
retically and actually a part of the larger whole. 
And to press the accuracy further, the colonies 
were part of the British Empire, not Great Britain. 
In the two decades preceding, the British flag had 

1 Moses Coit Tyler, Literary History of American Revolution, 
vol. i., p. 460. 

2 Journals of Congress, vol. i., p. 15. 



J 



1 6 Washington and Lincoln 

been planted on new stretches in four continents. 
Cook, roaming in regions hitherto unexplored; 
Wolfe, scaling the heights at Quebec; Clive, con- 
quering on the plains of Plassey; and indirectly, 
the growing power of Frederick the Great in 
Europe had made this possible. And when on 
February 10, 1763, in the City of Paris the de- 
finitive treaty was signed, 1 territorial expansion 
reached its culmination for the century and Great 
Britain became, what it has never ceased to be, 
the mighty British Empire. And it is significant 
that Washington, moving in the direction of a 
leadership that involved the creation of another 
empire, had in his possession credentials given 
him by a colony, which alone among the colonies 
of the continent, stated this far-reaching transi- 
tion from kingdom to empire. 

With this glimpse of Washington coming into 
the foreground, let us move back a decade and 
consider the Parliamentary group of 1765, as it 
faced the problem caused by the emergence of 
empire. The old saying, that next to a defeat the 
worst thing that can happen is a victory, finds a 
stupendous illustration in the work of this period. 
The French had been defeated and the result of 
victory was a vast territorial expansion. This 

1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. xv., p. 1291. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 17 

expansion called for a change in the colonial 
policy in order that the results of the victory 
might be made permanent and effective. In 
making this change a clash came with the colonies. 
The outcome of the clash, and the price paid 
for the victory, was the loss of the American 
colonies. Washington came to his leadership 
because of this change in policy. This being 
true, it will be necessary, in order to under- 
stand Washington, to consider briefly the colonial 
policy of England. 

In the three hundred years of England's 
colonial history, there have been three distinct 
policies : namely, the commercial, the political, and 
the reciprocal. The commercial policy began in 
the seventeenth and continued well into the eigh- 
teenth century. Under this policy the colonies 
were considered as economic possessions for 
the enrichment of the mother country. They 
were outlying supply stations for the support of 
the mercantile interests. About the middle of 
the eighteenth century the policy became political. 
The colonies were treated as territorial dependen- 
cies to be defended by, and to assist in, the defence 
of the empire. In the nineteenth century the 
policy became reciprocal. The colonies were 
thought of as co-ordinate parts of the empire. 



18 Washington and Lincoln 

Commerce followed natural channels, and develop- 
ment through self-government was encouraged. 
The colonies were parts of a whole, each receiving 
and contributing according to its possibilities. 

This threefold distinction cannot be pushed too 
far. There never was a time during the seven- 
teenth century when the commercial policy pre- 
vailed that the political did not also exist. There 
never was a time during the eighteenth century 
when the political policy prevailed that the com- 
mercial did not also exist. And there never was 
a time during the nineteenth century that the 
commercial and political did not survive along 
with the reciprocal policy. In fact, there are 
those who claim that the supreme task for English 
statesmen in the twentieth century is the blending 
of the commercial, political, and reciprocal into 
a confederated empire. The word for this cen- 
tury in English colonial policy, is undoubtedly — 
confederation. 

It may be further noted that the changes in 
England's colonial policy have come less often 
through gradual development than by radical 
modification. In the nineteenth century Adam 
Smith's Wealth of Nations exerted such an in- 
fluence upon the public mind as to effect a radical 
modification, which amounted to a practical 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 19 

abandonment of the colonial traditions. 1 In the 
eighteenth century, the change was less pro- 
nounced in its economic aspect, but none the less 
radical, as it involved a break with certain theories 
of government. 

As has been suggested, the English ministry 
believed that the colonial policy should be adjusted 
to meet the changed conditions due to the emer- 
gence of empire. This meant an extension of the 
system of imperial control, which required a 
strengthening of the military defence in the distant 
parts, and a reorganisation of the fiscal system for 
the support of the defence thus established. To 
accomplish this reorganisation, three methods 
were in turn experimented with in the American 
colonies during the period beginning with 1763. 

The first method suggested, placed the entire 
responsibility for the military defence both as to 
money and men, upon the colonies in question. 
In 1753, the English Board of Trade advised the 
calling of a conference of the colonies to consider 
this method. In the following year, nine colonies 
were represented in a conference at Albany. The 
committee appointed at this conference to prepare 
a plan, went beyond the advice of the English 

1 Published in 1776, but did not begin to work on the English 
political mind until later. Thus as an influence it is placed in 
the 19th century. 



20 Washington and Lincoln 

Board and reported a scheme of organisation 
which called for a consideration of the civil as 
well as military affairs. A governor-general was to 
be appointed and supported by the Crown. A 
grand council was to be elected by the assemblies 
of the colonies, having authority to determine the 
number of men needed and the amount of money 
required for their support, subject always to the 
veto of the home government. It is an open 
question whether the English ministry would have 
approved of this plan. However, it was never 
offered for their approval, as the colonies, to whom 
it was first submitted, rejected it. * 

The second method was that of requisition. By 
this means the home government, acting under 
advice of the provincial governors, determined the 
number of men and amount of money needed 
for military defence, and then called upon the 
assemblies in the colonies to provide the same. 
The method was an old one. Its success, however, 
in the past had not been uniform. Some colonies 
had more than met the requisition and others had 
less than met it. In the judgment of the home 
government, it was not considered an adequate 
solution, and it was used only in the years follow- 

1 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Smythe Ed., vol. iii., 
pp. 197-226. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 21 

ing the failure of the Albany plan for want of a 
better one. Doubtless the leaders in England 
were influenced in their adverse opinion by the 
decided tendency in the direction of centralisation. 
The method was opposed to any program looking 
to an extension of imperial control. The ministry 
was not easy in the thought, that its plans for 
unifying the empire were conditioned upon the 
votes of crude legislators in the wilds of the New 
World. And it must be said that a study of the 
requisition system during the eighteenth century, 
indicates that the ministry was not far wrong in 
its lack of confidence. 

The third method tried was that of taxation. 
The soldiers had been stationed in the colonies 
and must be supported. The Parliamentary 
leaders argued as follows: The colonies will not 
agree upon a plan of union for their own military 
defence. The requisition method has not been a 
success. The long and expensive war with France 
was carried on in part for the defence of the 
colonies. The home government has incurred an 
enormous debt, and the debt of the colonies, by 
comparison, is small. England with eight million 
people has a debt of seven hundred million dollars 
while the colonies with two million people has only 
four millions debt. The ten thousand soldiers 



22 Washington and Lincoln 

now stationed in the colonies add commercially 
to their wealth and much to their security. Since 
only a portion, perhaps less than one half of the 
expense, will fall upon the colonies, the method of 
taxation, under the circumstances, is necessary, 
wise, and just. This was the argument advanced. 

However, there was something to be said by the 
colonies. They knew that through the trade 
regulations, made to favour the British merchants, 
they were sending about two million dollars 
annually across the water. This they considered 
as an indirect tax, and knew it to be about double 
the amount required for the maintenance of 
military defence. Again, the colonies did not 
feel the pressing need of military defence, and 
suspected that the ministry was more interested 
in extending imperial control from the centre, 
than in strengthening the military defence on 
the circumference. 

There was still another objection, felt rather 
than expressed by the colonies, namely, the absence 
of the sense of dependence implied in the plans 
for military defence. The treaty of 1763, had 
changed the relation of the colonies to the home 
government. And in changing this, the political 
centre of gravity of the empire was shifted. An 
examination of the correspondence and discussions 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 23 

during the negotiations leading up to the making 
of the treaty, show that the English leaders an- 
ticipated this objection. 

The fact is, the leaders in dictating terms in 
the treaty faced a dilemma. If they accepted 
Guadaloupe and allowed France to remain on the 
continent, then the frontiers of the empire in 
America were in constant danger. If they de- 
manded that France withdraw from the continent, 
then the colonies, no longer fearing invasion, 
would lose their sense of dependence upon the 
mother country. x 

But the time had come to act. The soldiers 
were garrisoned in the colonies and funds for their 
maintenance must be forthcoming. The English 
merchant class was complaining loudly of the 
increase in taxes. So in 1764, the Sugar Bill, and 
the next year the Stamp Act, were introduced by 
the ministry and passed by large majorities. 
Neither bill attracted any attention in England, 
yet the enactment into law of these measures 
marks the radical change in England's colonial 
policy by which the emphasis was shifted from the 
commercial to the political, and a situation created 
that led to the loss of the American colonies. 2 

1 Beers, British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765, pp. 142-159. 
2 The preamble to the Sugar Bill read: "Whereas it is just 
and necessary that a revenue be raised in your Majesty's said 



24 Washington and Lincoln 

Curiously enough, the Sugar Bill awakened no 
interest in the colonies, but the Stamp Act at 
once created intense excitement, leading to open 
resistance, which in turn reacted upon England, 
and precipitated one of the greatest debates in 
Parliament. Suddenly it dawned upon the leaders 
that in changing the colonial policy they had 
raised the fundamental questions of constitutional 
government. In the debate, one of the great 
statesmen said: "America if she fell, would fall 
like the strong man; she would embrace the 
pillars of State, and pull down the Constitution 
along with her." 1 

This is very strong language, and the question 
arises, how could a couple of legislative enact- 
ments, having to do with the duty on molasses and 
sticking stamps on commercial paper and alma- 
nacs, lead to a debate of such magnitude? Let us 
consider the question. 

In January, 1766, the new Ministry introduced 
in Parliament a resolution calling for the repeal of 
the Stamp Act, passed in the preceding year. 
The reason given for advocating the repeal was 
that reports had been received indicating such 

dominions in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, 
protecting, and securing the same." 4 George III., chapter 15. 
1 British Orations; Adams Ed., vol. i., p. 117. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 25 

opposition in the colonies that the effective en- 
forcement of the law was impossible. But along 
with the resolution for repeal was a Declaratory 
Act, asserting the right to impose the tax and 
saying that Parliament, "had, hath, and of 
right ought to have, full power and authority to 
make laws and statutes of sufficient force and 
validity to bind the colonies and people of America 
subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, in all 
cases whatsoever." 1 That is, the resolution for 
repeal and the Declaratory Act, taken together, 
meant that the government intended actually to 
retreat from its position, but theoretically to 
maintain it. This dual situation opened the 
debate, which continued in one form or another 
for ten years, engaging the efforts of the ablest 
group of statesmen ever gathered at one time in 
the English Parliament. 

In support of this statement some names have 
but to be mentioned. There was the elder Pitt, 
to whom Frederick the Great referred when he 
said: "England has taken long to produce a great 
man, but here is one at last." 2 He was soon to 
lay aside the role of the "Great Commoner," and, 
moving backward into the future, become Lord 

1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. xvi., p. 161. 

2 Carlyle's Frederick the Great, Centennial Ed., vol. vi, p. 263. 



26 Washington and Lincoln 

Chatham. Opposed to him was the profound 
Murray, at this time Lord Mansfield, whose name 
will linger longest in history, because of his decision 
in the famous Somerset case. In the same branch 
of Parliament was Lord Camden, also masterful 
in jurisprudence, but who, unlike Mansfield, had a 
breadth of interest that equalled his depth of 
learning. Along with this trio cast in massive 
mould, was Pownall, who had what the others 
lacked, a practical experience in colonial affairs, 
and whose position in the light of his experience 
in America was conciliatory. Here also was 
Grenville, the author of the Stamp Act, who, 
while in power was charged with doing what 
his predecessors never cared to do, namely, read 
the American despatches. ' Holding an under 
position, yet at this time the sensation of the 
political clubs of London, was the brilliant Charles 
Townshend, who, in the following year became the 
author of another act, and whose career was as 
meteoric as his mind was brilliant. In compara- 
tive obscurity, though soon to be known on both 
sides of the Atlantic, was Lord North, the amiable, 
faithful, and unswerving mouthpiece of the King. 
And finally the young Irishman, Edmund Burke, 

» Lecky, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. iv, p. 
50. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 27 

not yet a member of Parliament, but a constant 
visitor, whose mind was "Asiatic," and who was 
destined to take a most conspicuous place as the 
philosophic statesman of the period. These were 
the leaders in the Parliamentary group. 

What was the question that these leaders dis- 
cussed, which if answered as Pitt feared it might 
be answered, would mean the "pulling down of the 
pillars of State?" The answer is, the question 
involved was none other than that of power — 
a question at once the most fundamental and 
disturbing in constitutional government, whether 
that of a monarchy or democracy. 

As Guizot, writing in the next century said: 

What is the source of sovereign power and what is 
its limit? Whence does it come and where does it 
stop? In the answer to this question is involved the 
real principle of government; for it is the principle, 
whose influence direct or indirect, latent or obvious 
gives to societies their tendency and their fate. * 

In this era of experiment, the Parliamentary 
leaders, striving to adjust the colonial policy to 
changed conditions of empire, had unintentionally 
come upon the mighty question. 

As this question suddenly loomed big before 
them, four problems appeared; or rather, four 

1 Guizot, History of Representative Government in Europe, p. 57. 



28 Washington and Lincoln 

phases of this one question were seen; for big 
problems are like rare jewels, flashing varied lights 
when seen from different angles. 

First, granting the existence of power in govern- 
ment, where in the creation of empire, under a 
constitution, is this power lodged? Is the power 
absolute at the centre for the extension of imperial 
control? Or is the power lodged at the centre 
modified by the power lodged at the circumfer- 
ence? And if there is power other than at the 
centre, how much? 

This question of the lodgment of power was not 
new in English history, although it appeared at 
this time under new conditions. The Irish House 
of Lords protested against a reversal, by the 
English House of Lords, of one of its judgments on 
appeal. And the English Parliament passed an 
Act in 1 719, depriving the Irish House of any 
appellate jurisdiction, declaring that the English 
Parliament "had, hath, and of right ought to have 
full power and authority to make laws and stat- 
utes of sufficient power and validity to bind the 
people of Ireland." 1 Here was a definite state- 
ment of absolute power lodged in the government 
at the centre. 

Strange as it may seem to-day, this historic 

1 6 George I., chapter v. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 29 

precedent was acknowledged by all members of 
the Parliamentary group in 1766. They agreed 
that the legislative power of Parliament was 
absolute. But they did not agree as to what was 
legislation. 

In this respect the debate marked a departure 
in English history. For the first time the distinc- 
tion was made between external and internal 
taxation. The Sugar Bill was external taxation. 
The Stamp Act was internal taxation. But some 
said taxation that had to do with external com- 
merce was not properly taxation but legislation, 
even though one result might be the securing of 
revenue. Its underlying purpose was the regula- 
tion of commerce. Internal taxation was not 
properly legislation, its purpose being to raise 
revenue. Others and the majority, said, taxation 
whether external or internal was legislation. 
Parliament, said those who made the distinction, 
is supreme in legislation but not in taxation. 
Parliament, said those who denied the distinction, 
is supreme in all taxation because it is legislation. 

Pitt said : 

It is my opinion that this kingdom has no right to 
lay a tax upon the colonies. . . . Taxation is no 
part of the governing or legislative power. The 
distinction between legislation and taxation is essen- 



30 Washington and Lincoln 

tial to liberty. The Commons of America, represented 
in their several assemblies, have ever been in the 
possession of the exercise of this, their constitutional 
right of giving and granting their own money. They 
would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it. 
At the same time, this kingdom as the supreme govern- 
ing and legislative power, has always bound the 
colonies by her laws, by her regulations and restric- 
tions in trade, in navigation, in manufactures, in 
everything except that of taking money out of their 
pockets without their consent. Here I would draw 
the line. ' 

Grenville could not find this distinction. He 
said: 

I cannot understand the difference between external 
and internal taxes. They are the same in effect and 
differ only in name. That this kingdom has the 
sovereign, the supreme legislative power over America 
is granted ; it cannot be denied ; and taxation is a part 
of that sovereign power. It is one branch of the 
legislation. 2 

In this Grenville was supported by Lord Mansfield 
who said : 

I cannot see a real difference in this distinction; 
for I hold it to be true, that a tax laid on any place is 
like a pebble falling into and making a circle in a lake, 
till one circle produces and gives motion to another, 
and the whole circumference is agitated from the 

1 British Orations, vol. i., pp. 102, 105. 2 Ibid., p. 106. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 31 

centre. For nothing can be more clear than that a 
tax of ten or twenty per cent, laid upon tobacco either 
in the ports of Virginia or London, is a duty laid upon 
the inland plantations of Virginia, a hundred miles 
from the sea, wheresoever the tobacco grows. r 

And the reasoning of Mansfield was sound. 
Pitt rested his argument upon the supposed 
distinction in parliamentary procedure. As he 
says: "The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant 
of the Commons alone. In legislation the three 
estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the 
concurrence of the peers and the crown to a tax is 
only necessary to clothe it with the form of law. " 2 

But on a question so momentous, any argument 
that is based on mere parliamentary procedure 
carries its own refutation. The ministry was on 
solid ground. A tax was a tax whether laid on 
foreign or domestic commerce, and the act which 
authorised it was legislation. The colonial leaders 
saw this, although they acquiesced in the tax when 
laid in the guise of trade regulation, as a child will 
take its medicine if coated with sugar. 

This led to a second question, — whence is 
the power lodged in government derived? The 
answer given was that the power is derived from 
the people as represented. This answer seemed 

1 British Orations, vol. i., p. 163. 3 Ibid., p. 103. 



32 Washington and Lincoln 

simple and conclusive. However, it is well to 
note the exact wording. The answer was not, 
the power is derived from the people, but from the 
people as represented. 

But what was representation? The}' - all agreed 
that under the constitution, the government should 
be representative. But how much of representa- 
tion by the people was necessary to make the 
government representative, was the question. 
The student cannot avoid the impression that the 
statesmen of this period either quibbled in the 
use of words, or utterly lacked imagination, in 
their interpretation of the situation. 

As in the discussion on the lodgment of power, 
terms came into use that now have no meaning, 
so in the discussion on the source of power. They 
talked about virtual and actual representa- 
tion. Some said, that according to the theory 
of virtual representation, all parts of the empire 
were represented. Others said, that inasmuch as 
the supposed representation was not actual, it 
was not real. From this they argued that as 
parts of the empire were not represented, it was 
unconstitutional to tax them. Lord Camden said: 

I will maintain to the last hour, taxation and 
representation are inseparable. This position is 
founded on the law of nature. It is more, it is in 



The Parliamentary Group of 1 765 33 

itself an eternal law of nature. For whatever is a 
man's own is absolutely his own. No man has a 
right to take it from him without his own consent 
either expressed by himself or his own representation. « 

Mansfield met this emphatic assertion by insisting 
that virtual representation was in a legal sense 
actual representation and, therefore, Parliament in 
laying taxes upon the colonies was acting within 
the limits of the constitution. He said: 

There can be no doubt, but that the inhabitants 
of the colonies are as much represented in Parliament, 
as the greatest part of the people of England are 
represented; among nine millions of whom there are 
eight who have no votes in Parliament. To what 
purpose, then, are arguments drawn from a distinction 
in which there is no real difference — of a virtual and 
actual representation? A member of Parliament 
chosen for any borough, represents not only the 
constituents and inhabitants of that particular place 
but he represents the inhabitants of every other 
borough in Great Britain; he represents the City of 
London and all the other commons of this land, and 
the inhabitants of all the colonies and dominions of 
Great Britain, and is, in duty and conscience bound 
to take care of their interests. 2 

Pitt ridiculed this position by saying: 

There is an idea in some that the colonies are vir- 
tually represented in the House. I would fain know 

1 British Orations, vol. i., p. 118. 2 Ibid., p. 161. 

3 



34 Washington and Lincoln 

by whom an American is represented here. Is he 
represented by any knight of the shire, in any county 
in this kingdom? — The idea of a virtual representa- 
tion in America is the most contemptible idea that 
ever entered into the head of a man. It does not 
deserve a serious refutation. « 

When Pitt spoke thus, he held in his hand a 
copy of Dulany's masterly argument, in which 
the American, viewing the debate at a distance, 
said: "The theory of virtual representation is a 
mere cobweb spread to catch the unwary and 
entangle the weak." 2 And surely Pitt and Cam- 
den had the stronger end of the argument. Mans- 
field's argument might be legally sound. But the 
fundamental questions that concern the welfare 
of the people are not settled by spinning legal 
cobwebs. However, the English government 
thought so, and adopted Mansfield's position. 

And now came a third question, how should the 
power thus derived and lodged be expressed? 
There were three positions taken. The first was, 
that Parliament had the right and should exercise 
it. This was the contention of Mansfield and 
Grenville. The second was, that Parliament had 
not the right, to the extent of taxing the colonies. 

1 British Orations., p. 104. 

3 Moses Coit Tyler, Literary History of American Revolution, 
vol. i., p. 104. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 35 

Pitt and Camden took this position. The third 
was, that Parliament had the right, but under these 
conditions should not use it. Pownall and Burke 
best represented this position. Pownall said: "Let 
the matter of right rest upon the Declaratory 
Law, and say no more about it. Do nothing which 
may bring into discussion questions of right which 
must become mere articles of faith. " r 

This was the position which the English minis- 
try finally took after the failure of its experiments. 
That is, it asserted the right, never receding from 
this position, of taxing the colonies, but doubted 
the expediency. However, through an undue 
emphasis upon right, and a grudging acceptance 
of expediency, it created a situation described by 
Burke when he said: 

Everything administered as remedy to the public 
complaint, if it did not produce, was followed by a 
heightening of the distemper; until by a variety of 
experiments, that important country has been brought 
into her present situation — a situation which I will 
not miscall, which I dare not name, which I scarcely 
know how to comprehend in the terms of any 
description. 2 

Attempting to handle the situation in the spirit 
of compromise, and bungling in its attempt, the 

1 Hansard's, Debates, vol. xvi., p. 506. 
3 Ibid., vol. xviii., p. 480. 



36 Washington and Lincoln 

government was compelled to resort to force. 
For compromise is a dangerous expedient unless 
used with skill. And the conclusion is inevitable 
that the skill was lacking. 

This lack of skill was revealed in three courses 
of action. First, the Declaratory Act of 1766, 
following the repeal of the Stamp Act, and assert- 
ing the right to lay the tax. Second, the repeal of 
the Townshend Acts in 1770, with the retention of 
the duty on tea in order to maintain the right; for 
as Lord North said, "the properest time to exert 
our right of taxation is when the right is refused. " 1 
Third, the repression acts of 1774, which included 
the closing of the Port of Boston, the remodelling 
of the Charter of Massachusetts, and the giving 
of authority to the governors to send those indicted 
for certain crimes, together with the witnesses, to 
England for trial. 

As the student of the period pictures the scene 
in the House of Commons in 1775, with Edmund 
Burke delivering his magnificent speech on Con- 
ciliation, he wonders whether the listeners really 
understand his language. For it was in this 
speech, with the commoners in their seats, and 
probably the peers in attendance, that he said: 
"The question with me is not whether you have a 

' Hansard's Debates, vol. xvi., p. 854. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 37 

right to render your people miserable, but whether 
it is not your interest to make them happy. It is 
not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what 
humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to 
do." 1 That the spirit of the great orator's lan- 
guage had no meaning for those in power, is 
evident when it is remembered that at the con- 
clusion of his speech, Burke offered the first of 
six resolutions on conciliation, only to have it 
lost by the overwhelming vote of 78 to 240. 2 

Compromise in its noble sense, at this period 
was a lost art. And following this speech came 
force, first on the green at Lexington, then on the 
hill at Charlestown, and finally on a hundred 
battlefields in the colonies. The answer to the 
question as to the expression of power was, through 
compromise if possible, by force when necessary. 
But the use of one, and the execution of the other 
were defective. 

This led to a fourth question, — what was the 
abuse of power? Of course, the ministry would 
have said there was no abuse of power. But with 
such master minds in Parliament as Pitt, Camden, 
Burke, Mansfield, and Pownall, how came it that 
the expression of power was so imperfect? There 
can be but one answer, namely, George the Third. 

1 Hansard's Debates, vol. xviii., p. 506. 2 Ibid., p. 541. 



38 Washington and Lincoln 

It is not necessary to read the fiery denuncia- 
tions of the American patriots in order to reach 
this conclusion. Lecky, who certainly cannot be 
accused of any prejudice for the American cause, 
sums up his study of this period by saying of the 
King: "He spent a long life in obstinately resist- 
ing measures which are now almost universally 
admitted to have been good, and in supporting 
measures which are as universally admitted to 
have been bad." 1 Thackeray says: "Our chief 
troubles began when we got a king who gloried in 
the name of Britain, and being born in the country, 
proposed to rule it. " 2 David Hume in one of his 
last letters, prophesied that, if the Court carried 
the day in America the English constitution 
would infallibly perish. 3 

The evidence is unmistakable, that George 
the Third increasingly shaped the policy of the 
government, from the overthrow of Pitt in 1763, 
until the colonies were lost with the signing of the 
treaty in 1783. At the time of his coronation his 
mother remarked, " George, be king. " 4 He accep- 
ted the advice, and proceeded to rule not through 

1 Lecky, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. Hi., 
p. 171. 2 Thackeray, Four Georges, p. 39. 

3 Trevelyan, American Revolution, vol. ii., part 2, p. 156. 

A Lecky, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. iii., 
p. 168. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 39 

the judgment of his ministers, but by using his 
ministers for the expression of his own judgment. 

There are, however, some things to be said in 
favour of the King. One is, that at this time every 
throne in Europe rested upon the conception of 
absolute power residing in the sovereign. Another 
is, that the tendency in England for half a century 
had been in the direction of a centralised power. 
This tendency was seen first in the enormous 
influence wielded by the Whig families, an in- 
fluence against democracy and in favour of aris- 
tocracy. Then it was seen in the breaking down 
of the Whigs, and the return to power of the 
Tories. With the return of the Tory party came 
the old doctrine, that the King ruled not under 
the limitation of the constitution as defined by 
Parliament, but by divine right. And as if to 
encourage the King in his thirst for power, Black- 
stone claimed for him this right when he said: 
"The King of England is not only the chief, but 
properly the sole magistrate of the nation, all 
others acting by commission from and in due 
subordination to him." 1 

Perhaps the great jurist intended such language 
to be a theoretical description of an ideal condi- 
tion, but the King accepted the words literally. 

1 Lecky, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. iii., p.174. 



40 Washington and Lincoln 

Such advice was dangerous for a king of the type 
of George the Third, for possessing more will- 
power than mental acumen, he was ever ready to 
insist upon his rights. He also possessed that 
most dangerous combination, of being corrupt 
in public life, while above reproach in private 
life. Through his willingness to use unworthy 
means for what he held to be the public good, 
he assembled a large following in Parliament. 
For example, it is said that in 1770 there were 
192 members of the House of Commons, who 
also held positions under the government at the 
disposal of the King. 1 

It is such a fact as this, together with his known 
interference with legislation, which gives warrant 
to the statement, that George the Third was the 
immediate cause of the American Revolution. 
It is in the light of such conditions that the mean- 
ing of Pitt's remark is made clear when he said 
he would return to St. James if he could take the 
Constitution with him. The King was unwilling. 
He was not a tyrant, as many across the sea 
supposed, nor was he a selfish ruler, bent upon 
advancing his own interests at the expense of the 
people. Viewed in the long stretch of English 
history, he stands forth as a sovereign, who, 

1 Lecky, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. iii., p.369. 



The Parliamentary Group of 1765 41 

believing himself superior to Parliament, resisted 
constitutional development. He was like the 
huge rock in a stream against which the current 
breaks, and in breaking forms a counter current. 
In this counter current the colonies were swept 
away, though in the stronger current, constitu- 
tional development was to move forward to the 
greater British Empire of to-day. 

To summarise then the movement of the period. 
It began with the emergence of empire as seen in 
the treaty of 1763. This called for an extension 
of the system of imperial control, which included 
a strengthening of the military defence in distant 
parts. This meant a shift of emphasis in the 
colonial policy from the commercial to the politi- 
cal. In making this shift, the mighty question 
of power in government suddenly came into view, 
bringing with it the consideration of the lodgment, 
source, expression, and abuse of power. The 
answers given were such as to add significance to 
Turgot's remark: "Wise and happy will be that 
nation the first to bend its policy to the new cir- 
cumstances, to see in its colonies only allied 
provinces, and no longer subject to the mother- 
country. " x 

1 Stephens, Life and Writings of Turgot, p. 322. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 

In one of the big, buff-coloured volumes of the 
Library of Congress, entitled, Journals of the 
Continental Congress, is the following entry, under 
date of August 2, 1776: "The declaration of inde- 
pendence being engrossed and compared at the 
table was signed." 1 This entry constitutes the 
period at the end of the legislative sentence, 
formed by the grouping of the preceding entries; 
and which entries thus grouped, spell out the 
independence of the colonies. The formal state- 
ment is: 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United 
States of America, in General Congress assembled, 
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, for 
the rectitude of our intentions, Do, in the Name, and 
by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, 
solemnly publish and declare that these united Colon- 
ies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent 
States. 

If the reports which have been handed down are 
reliable, the delegates as they gathered about the 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. v., p. 626. 
42 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 43 

table on this August day, were in a light-hearted 
mood. The President as he scrawled his name 
remarked, that he wrote his name thus large "that 
King George might read it without spectacles." 
A man whose name is unknown, and who was 
uneasy, because of this unseemly facetiousness, 
soberly suggested that they must all hang together. 
This was too much for the genial old wit of the 
company who replied, that "unless we all hang 
together we must all hang separately." 1 Later, 
the corpulent member from Virginia followed the 
lead suggested, and said to a lean member from 
Massachusetts, "I shall have the advantage over 
you, for my neck probably will be broken at the 
first drop, whereas you may have to dangle for 
half an hour." 2 

It may seem incongruous that these men should 
indulge in such trifling talk as the}' sign their 
names to a document that closes with these 
words: "And for the support of this Declaration, 
with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine 
Providence, we mutually pledge each other our 
Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honour." 
But nature knows about this. The great moments 

1 Jefferson states that Franklin would have been asked to 
write the Declaration, but for the fear that he would insert a 
joke. See Writings of Franklin, Smythe Ed., vol. i., p. 1 66. 

2 Hosmer's Life of Samuel Adams, p. 349. 



44 Washington and Lincoln 

in history are usually relieved by the lighter 
touches. And as the deep heaving billows in the 
violent storm, toss from their crests the flecks 
of foam, so from the surface of minds, in the depths 
of which are profound and serious convictions, 
this persiflage is thrown. 

But who were the men who signed their names, 
and pledged their lives, fortunes, and honour? 
An examination of the engrossed copy of the ori- 
ginal Declaration now in the keeping of the State 
Department at the national capitol, shows fifty- 
six names, spread over the paper in five columns. 
In one of the columns is the name of Samuel 
Adams, the man of the town meeting, who through 
adroit management and superb agitation, led the 
forces of democracy. Below is that of John 
Adams, his younger cousin, the Atlas of inde- 
pendence, who, having more learning than his 
relative, exercised less influence. Another name 
is that of John Witherspoon, the college president, 
who by his presence in this Congress, gave cur- 
rency to the expression — the scholar in politics. 
Not far removed is the name of Francis Hopkinson, 
who was an enigma to many, because on the sur- 
face he seemed a conservative gentleman from 
England, while in fundamental conviction he was 
in sympathy with the colonies. And then the 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 45 

name of the then most famous man in the colonies, 
Benjamin Franklin, the printer, scientist, philo- 
sopher, statesman, and diplomat. In another 
column is the name of George Wythe, the great 
lawyer and equally great teacher of great lawyers, 
who, in signing this paper, gave assent to a docu- 
ment prepared by one of his students. Separated 
by several names as if to suggest that he is no 
longer a pupil, is that of Thomas Jefferson, the 
man whose mind seemed not well poised in debate, 
but from whose pen could flow the thoughts of a 
continent. And finally the name of Edward Rut- 
ledge, the youngest deputy in the Assembly, 
described in one of the crisp Braintree letters, as 
"too talkative," 1 but pronounced by one best 
qualified to judge, "the finest orator of the com- 
pany." 2 

To these names should be added others not found 
2X the end of the engrossed copy of the Declara- 
tion, for this movement was larger than the hall, 
with its ink bottle and quill on the table, and the 
men gathered about it. The name of John Jay, 
who later became the first Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court is missing, because not receiving 
instructions from his colony in time, he lacked 

' Works of John Adams, vol. ii., pp. 369, 401. 

a Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 440. 



46 Washington and Lincoln 

authority to sign his name. 1 And the name of 
John Dickinson, the penman of the Revolution, 
is not in the list. He was in agreement with the 
delegates, as regards the justice and ultimate need 
of independence, but on grounds of expediency, 
doubted the wisdom of a declaration at this time. a 
The signature of Patrick Henry, "who spoke as 
Homer wrote, " is not here. However, the absence 
of his name means more than its presence would 
have meant, for it reminds us of the fact sometimes 
forgotten, that the struggle for independence was 
as important in the colonies forming the Union, 
as in the union formed by the colonies. And in 
this year he was leading the progressive forces of 
his State in the adoption of its constitution. 

And one more name, that of Washington. If 
any evidence were needed to prove that the 
Revolutionary movement in its representative 
aspect, was larger than the names attached to the 
document, that evidence is furnished by the 
absence of his name. Washington had been a 
member of the Congress, and Patrick Henry, so 
unlike him in many respects said, "In solid infor- 
mation and sound judgment he was the first man 
in the Congress." 3 But the time had come to 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. vi., p. 1092. * Ibid., p. 1087. 

s Writings oj Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 440. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 47 

leave the Congress. He was among the first to 
perceive the military aspect of the struggle. He 
understood that the realisation of independence 
whether within or without the empire, meant more 
than agitation and legislative enactment. The 
mind of the reader to-day is hushed, as one of 
the intimate letters of this simple and modest 
man is read, closing with the words, "It is my 
intention to devote my life and fortune to the 
cause we are engaged in if needful." 1 In the 
Second Congress he appeared in the famous blue 
uniform with the buff trimmings of a colonel, and 
as another finely says, "thereby unconsciously 
nominated himself for the command of the Arm}'-." 2 
And the members of the Congress so understand- 
ing it, elected him commander-in-chief on June 
15th of the same year. 3 After making his only 
recorded speech in the Congress, he left Phila- 
delphia and joined the little army at Boston. 
And on this summer day in 1776, while the dele- 
gates are signing their names to the Declaration, 
he is yonder at New York, watching with brave 
and anxious heart, the ships of the British squad- 
ron, as they tug at the anchors off Staten Island. 4 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 464. * Ibid., p. 477. 

3 Journals of Congress, vol. ii., pp. 91, 92. 

4 The mythical tendency in history has shown itself in the 
story of the signing of the Declaration. A corrective for this 



48 Washington and Lincoln 

Surely if ever a man in history was able to prove 
a glorious alibi, that man was Washington. And 
it was more than an alibi, for Washington at New 
York, in this crisis, was the extension to the field 
of battle of the Continental Congress. He, 
with the army under him, was trying to do what 
the Congress was trying to say. And it is no 
mere rhetorical flourish to suggest, that if the 
Declaration of Independence was written on parch- 
ment, it was framed with bayonets and nailed 
with shot. 1 

These are the men who formed the Revolutionary 
group of 1776, with Washington as the command- 
ing personality. A group to whom Chatham paid 
the following tribute when he said: 

tendency is found in reading Friedenwald's The Declaration of 
Independence. However, the student feels some sympathy for 
this tendency as he recalls Samuel Johnson's words: "There are 
inexcusable lies, and consecrated lies. For instance we are told 
that on the arrival of the news of the unfortunate battle of 
Fontenoy, every heart beat, and every eye was in tears. Now 
we know no man eat his dinner the worse, but there should have 
been all this concern; and to say there was, may be reckoned a 
consecrated lie." Boswell's Johnson, vol. ii., p. 218. 

1 The measure of Washington's influence on Congress, in the 
days immediately preceding the issuance of the Declaration will 
never be taken. Washington Irving seems to imply that it 
was greater than is supposed by writers to-day. He quotes 
General Lee as writing Washington: "I am extremely glad, 
dear general, that you are in Philadelphia, for their counsels 
sometimes lack a little military electricity." Irving's Life of 
Washington, vol. ii., p. 208. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 49 

For myself I must declare that in all my reading 
and observation — and history has been my favourite 
study; I have read Thucydides, and have studied 
and admired the master states of the world — that for 
solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom 
of conclusion, under such a complication of difficult 
circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in 
preference to the General Congress at Philadelphia. 1 

It was a diversified group. In experience, 
ability, and temperament, its members varied. It 
is a long distance from Sam Adams, fitted out 
with a new suit of clothes by his neighbours in 
Boston, that he might make a respectable appear- 
ance at the First Congress, to Francis Hopkinson, 
the polished gentleman receiving from Europe 
the latest importations of books. And the transi- 
tion is rather sudden from the young, impulsive, 
and inexperienced Ned Rutledge, not yet thirty, 
to the sagacious, long-headed Ben Franklin in his 
seventieth year. However, as bits of glass in a 
kaleidoscope, of varying shapes, sizes, and colours, 
when shaken together, make a perfect picture, so 
these men combining their differences, produced 
the glorious formation of the Declaration of 
Independence. 

And in the Declaration as thus written with pen 
and sword, the Revolutionary leaders with Wash- 

1 Hansard's Debates, vol. xviii., p. 155. 
4 



50 Washington and Lincoln 

ington as the commanding figure are seen in the 
attitude of protest. The group in this period is 
not concerned primarily with a statement of 
government as it should be, but with a protest 
against government as it is. Tins means, that 
being a protest, it does not contain a clear state- 
ment of the political philosophy of the period. 
This philosophy is set forth in the formal addresses 
issued to the inhabitants in different parts of the 
empire, by the Congress in the preceding months, 
and better still, in the constitutions as adopted by 
the States in the following months. 

The leaders in the Declaration take an attitude 
in opposition to that taken by the Parliamentary 
leaders in 1765. The one word of the English 
leaders in their task of empire was, unification. 
The one word of the American leaders in their 
document of protest is, separation. This protest 
through separation was called forth by the con- 
ception of power as advanced by the Parliamentary 
leaders in their attempt at unification. And so 
the Revolutionary leaders say: "When a long 
train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invari- 
ably the same object, evinces the same design to 
reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their 
right, it is their duty to throw off such govern- 
ment. " And, as was noted in the preceding 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 51 

chapter, in trying to solve the problem of power 
in government for the unification of empire, the 
question of its lodgment arose. The English 
leaders, in the Declaratory Act passed in connec- 
tion with the withdrawal of the Stamp Act, and 
in the retention of the duty on tea after the 
Townshend Acts had become inoperative, main- 
tained that in Parliament was lodged absolute 
power to legislate for the colonies in all matters 
whatsoever. In protesting against this theory of 
power as lodged, the Revolutionary leaders go back 
of the ministerial leaders in Parliament to the King, 
by whom they were controlled, and say: "He 
has combined with others to subject us to a juris- 
diction foreign to our Constitutions, and unac- 
knowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their 
acts of pretended legislation." They maintained 
that in the distribution of power in the empire, 
their legislatures were co-ordinate in power with 
that of Parliament. 

This brought them, in the protest, to the 
question of the source of power. The English 
contention was that as all parts of the empire were 
represented, the Parliament, being imperial in 
representation, was therefore imperial in power. 
The colonies insisted that their legislatures were 
co-ordinate in power, because of necessity, except 



52 Washington and Lincoln 



by a legal fiction, the colonies could not be repre- 
sented in Parliament. And so, they said, the 
attempt of the English ministry to legislate for 
the colonies in "all matters whatsoever," was 
unconstitutional, They ignore the terms used in 
1765, such as internal and external taxation, and 
virtual and actual representation, and take a 
position not only against taxation without repre- 
sentation, but also, legislation without represen- 
tation. They protest against "the placing of 
standing armies without the consent of our 
legislatures," and of "taxation without our con- 
sent." 

These questions of power as lodged and derived, 
led to the third and more pressing question of 
expression. For the important consideration in 
a period of protest is, how shall the power claimed 
by those protesting be expressed. They, like the 
Parliamentary group, answered this question by 
saying, first, through compromise if possible. 
However, the colonies during this period were as 
defective in the art of compromise, as was the 
home government. The fact is, any period in 
which the main emphasis is placed upon "rights, " 
as distinct from what is right, is not one for the 
exercise of this constructive and noble spirit. 
It might perhaps be shown that the Revolutionary 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 53 

leaders were disposed to grant at the beginning of 
the period, that which later, under compelling 
circumstances, they refused to grant; even as 
later in the period the Parliamentary leaders were 
disposed to grant that which earlier in the period 
they refused. The Revolutionary leaders hint at 
this when they say: "Such has been the patient 
sufferance of these colonies." But probably no 
nearer approach to compromise during the period 
is found than in the Declaration itself. A com- 
parison of the draft reported by Jefferson, with 
the draft amended and finally adopted by the 
Congress, indicates a tendency in this direction. 
Two paragraphs in Jefferson's copy, the one 
censuring the English people, and the other 
against slavery, were stricken out entirely. * Even 
these suggestions of compromise are qualified, 
when it is remembered that the first paragraph 
was omitted in order to strengthen the argument, 
and the second that there might be unity of action 
and thus a united front. 

It was during the debate over these paragraphs, 
and while Jefferson listened uneasily to the criti- 
cisms of his carefully worded sentences, that 
Franklin told him the famous story about the 
hatter: 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. vi., p. 491. 



54 Washington and Lincoln 

When I was a young journeyman printer, one of my 
companions, an apprentice hatter, having served out 
his time, was about to open shop for himself. His 
first concern was to have a handsome sign board, 
with a proper inscription. He composed it in these 
words, "John Thompson, Hatter, makes and sells 
hats for ready money," with the figure of a hat 
subjoined; but he thought he would submit it to his 
friends for their approval. The first he showed it to 
thought the word "Hatter" tautologous, because 
followed by the words "makes hats, " which showed he 
was a hatter. It was struck out. The next observed 
that the word "makes" might as well be omitted, 
because his customers would not care who made the 
hats; if good and to their mind they would buy by 
whomsoever made. He struck it out. A third said 
he thought the words "for ready money" were useless, 
as it was not the custom of the place to sell on credit ; 
every one who purchased expected to pay. They 
were parted with and the inscription now stood, 
"John Thompson sells hats." "Sells hats?" says 
his next friend, "why nobody will expect you to give 
them away; and what is the use of that word?" It 
was stricken out, and hats followed it, the rather as 
there was one printed on the board. So the inscrip- 
tion was reduced ultimately to "John Thompson" 
with the figure of a hat subjoined. » 

If the first answer of power through compromise 
was ineffectual, then the second answer by force 
became necessary. Force did not follow in order 

1 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Smythe Ed., vol. i., p. 32. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 55 

to make effective the announcement of separation. 
But force having been used in making the protest, 
and having failed, separation as a last resort was 
declared. However, were the colonies justified 
in using force while remaining within the empire? 
The answer of the Revolutionary group was, Yes, 
and so they say : "When any form of government 
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right 
of the people to alter or abolish it. " In making 
this assertion, they were clearly within the mean- 
ing of the English constitution. These men had 
not forgotten the history of the seventeenth cen- 
tury in the mother-country. And more than this, 
they had studied the liberty documents, and knew 
that in the Great Charter, there was a clause to 
the effect that when the King exceeds his duty, 
the people may seize his castles and oppose his 
arms. 1 

This led to a fourth question, — namely, what 
constituted the abuse of power in government? 
The leaders believed that this abuse was in the 
person of King George. They doubtless exag- 
gerated this, and the reader should not forget 
that the leaders, in omitting all mention of Par- 
liament, and holding the King responsible for the 
acts of government in the colonies, had an argu- 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. vi., p. 1076. 



56 Washington and Lincoln 

mentative object in mind. They had finally- 
reached the only logical position, that the colonies 
were a part of the empire, not through Parliament, 
but through the Crown. If this were true, in 
protesting against the acts of government, they 
must make their protest to and against the Crown. 
But back of this argumentative maneuvering for 
position was a real protest against King George. 
They believed that in his extreme use of prerog- 
ative, based upon the Tory theory of the divine 
right of the king to rule, there was a tendency 
away from constitutional government, and this 
if persisted in, would destroy free institutions. 
So they speak of "a Prince whose character is 
thus marked by every act which may define a 
tyrant," and who, "is unfit to be the ruler of a 
free people." He, the personal king, was the 
abuse of power. In this they were in agreement 
with a conspicuous minority of English leaders. 

The Declaration of Independence then, is a reve- 
lation of Washington and the Revolutionary group 
of 1776 in the attitude of protest, against the 
conception of power in government as lodged, 
derived, expressed, and abused, as held by the 
Parliamentary group of 1765. 

But at this point, the student needs to be on his 
guard, lest he assume that in this great document 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 57 

is found an explanation of the era. The saying, 
"no documents, no history," may be true. But 
another saying, "no history, no documents," is 
also true. For documents are never the causes, 
but the effects of historic movements. And this 
document was but the culminating effect of causes 
that were fundamental in colonial life, and which 
made inevitable the protest against the English 
conception of power. What were these causes? 
The answer to this question is best found in the 
little pamphlet by Thomas Paine, entitled "Com- 
mon Sense." 1 This pamphlet of less than half a 
hundred pages, is of peculiar value in that it gives 
a well-nigh perfect picture of the influence upon 
the popular mind of conditions that were inherent 
in the situation. By a clever play upon the 
thoughts and feelings of the people, through a 
description of the existing conditions, Paine sud- 
denly became a mighty force in the crisis. He 
wrote the pamphlet in January, 1776, and within 



1 Thomas Paine has only in recent years come into his own, 
thanks to the thorough investigations of Moncure D. Conway, 
who has written his life and edited his works. For some reason, 
the early biographies of Paine were written, not for the purpose 
of interpreting but discrediting him. The man who received 
Napoleon Bonaparte as a caller, and heard the great emperor 
say that he slept nightly with a copy of his writings under his 
pillow, must have been more of a man than Chalmers and Cheet- 
ham would have the world believe. 



58 Washington and Lincoln 

a few weeks it reached the enormous sale of over 
one hundred thousand copies. 1 And it is no 
exaggeration to say, that, judged by the swiftness 
and intensity of its influence, it is the most re- 
markable achievement in the history of literature. 
No less an authority than the superb agitator 
Sam Adams said: "It unquestionably awakened 
the public mind and led the people loudly to call 
for declaration of our national independence." 2 
It is true the argument lacks balance, and is 
expressed in exaggerated language. The state- 
ment of the compact theory is also in terms of 
simplicity which are doubtless contrary to fact. 
Yet the critic of this pamphlet to-day needs to 
exercise some modesty, as he remembers that the 
words, "by their fruits ye shall know them," are 
as true in pamphleteering as in conduct. And 
further, as he recalls the fact, that, Washington 
among the first to read the pamphlet, wrote to a 
friend, "the sound argument and unanswerable 
reasoning contained in the pamphlet, 'Common 
Sense,' will not leave numbers at a loss to decide 
upon the propriety of separation." 3 Let us 
turn then the pages of this famous little work to 

1 Conway, Thomas Paine, vol. i., p. 69. 

1 Writings of Samuel Adams, Gushing Ed., vol. iv., p. 412. 

3 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. iii., p. 396. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 59 

find by suggestion an enumeration of the con- 
ditions which give meaning to the protest of the 
Revolutionary group. 

First, there was the sense of vastness. The 
French War, ending in the treaty of Paris in 1763, 
removed geographical barriers. The colonies in 
helping to remove the barriers, caught a view of 
the continent, and after the barriers were removed, 
the view as caught, was heightened. Only the 
fringe of the continent was settled, and vast 
portions were unexplored, but it was there, and the 
hostile limitations were gone. Settlers began to 
move down the Mohawk Valley, and over the 
Alleghany Mountains. The great ocean, winding 
streams, dark forests, towering mountains, inland 
lakes, and rolling prairies, influenced their think- 
ing, and caused them to feel the touch of destiny. 
The credentials issued to members of the First 
Congress, speak of the "Continent of North 
America." The Congress these members attend 
is the "Continental" Congress. The army au- 
thorised by the Congress, is the "Continental" 
Army. 

And Washington, as no other member of the 
Revolutionary group, perhaps embodied this sense 
of vastness. His early experience had led him over 
the mountains. His later plans called for huge 



60 Washington and Lincoln 

land developments on the banks of the Ohio. And 
even the thought of his great plantation caused 
him to stand forth as the man of a continent. 
Paine, understanding the grip that this sense of 
vastness had upon the mind of the people, says: 
" 'T is not the affair of a city, a county, a province, 
a kingdom, but of a continent — of at least one 
eighth part of the habitable globe. "' And again, 
"There is something absurd in supposing a conti- 
nent to be perpetually governed by an island. In 
no instance hath nature made the satellite larger 
than the primary planet." 2 The colonies with 
the vast area, unlimited resources, and increasing 
population, felt that it was not right that an island 
should rule a continent. And Paine appealed to 
this feeling. 

Second, there was the fact of distance. The 
colonies were far away from the mother country. 
The Atlantic Ocean was many times larger in the 
eighteenth century than it is in the twentieth 
century. This fact had its influence in the great 
struggle. It meant that few crossed the ocean. 
It is interesting to note that only one member of 
the Parliamentary group had ever visited America, 
and only one member of the Revolutionary group 

* Writings of Thomas Paine, Conway Ed., vol. i., p. 84. 
' Ibid., p. 92. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 61 

had ever visited England. And the result of 
this geographical separation was seen in three 
directions. 

First, the English leaders in attempting to 
extend the system of imperial control, failed to 
understand the conditions in the colonies. Had 
Mansfield spent a few weeks in America, he would 
never have closed one of his memorable speeches 
by saying with easy composure, "God bless this 
industrious, frugal, and well-meaning, but easily 
deluded people." 1 

Second, it was seen in the failure to make effec- 
tive this system of control. Doubtless the strain 
would have been relieved had the colonies been 
represented in Parliament. This point the English 
leaders would have yielded. But was it feasible? 
The colonies were far away and the ocean rolled 
between. Hutchinson saw this when he said: 
"I doubt whether it is possible to project a system 
of government in which a colony, three thousand 
miles distant from the parent state, shall enjoy 
all the liberty of the parent state." 2 

Third, the result was seen in the gradual loosen- 
ing of the ties that bound the colonies to the mother 
country, and with the loosening of ties, a loss of 

1 British Orations, Adams Ed., vol. i., p. 170. 

2 Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, p. 261. 



62 Washington and Lincoln 

the feeling of personal loyalty to the king. A 
writer on this period speaks of, "the ancient 
and passionate love of the American colonists for 
England itself, for England the cradle of the race, 
the one spot in all the world, which, during nearly 
two hundred years' absence from it, they had 
continued to speak of as home." 1 But a reading 
of the Revolutionary literature does not support 
this statement. Nature was against it. The 
fact of distance and the influence of time had done 
its work. The impulsive attitude of Washington, 
seen in his remark, "that he wished to God the 
liberties of America were to be determined by a 
single combat between himself and George," 2 
somehow does not reveal that august conception 
of royalty, that some of the loyalists not long in 
the colonies gloried in. 

There is a story of early Virginia which illus- 
trates the influence that distance exerted upon 
the colonies. In the founding of the James River 
Colony, the Indian Powhatan played an important 
and sometimes unexpected part. It is said that 
at the time of his coronation he was presented with 
a basin, ewer, bed cover, and a scarlet cloak, but 

* Moses Coit Tyler, Literary History of Amer. Rev., vol. ii., 
p. 132. 

3 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 440. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 63 

showed an unwillingness to kneel and receive the 
crown. At last three of the party, by bearing 
hard upon his shoulders, got him to stoop a little, 
and while he was in that position they clapped it 
upon his head. Powhatan innocently turned the 
whole proceeding into ridicule by taking his old 
shoes and cloak of raccoon skin, and giving them to 
Newport the governor. 1 Perhaps this is only an 
early Virginian story, but it fairly illustrates some 
tendencies which due to the fact of distance, were 
at work in America. 

Paine used this growing feeling in his pam- 
phlet. He makes fun of royalty, and plays 
upon the fact that strong sentiment for England 
is absent. He says: "Even the distance at 
which the Almighty hath placed England and 
America is a strong and natural proof that the 
authority of the one over the other was never the 
design of heaven." 2 He touches upon the prac- 
tical difficulties of administration when he says: 
"To be always running three or four thousand 
miles with a tale or petition, waiting four or five 
months for an answer, which, when obtained, 
requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a 
few years be looked upon as folly and childish- 

1 L. G. Tyler, England in America, p. 56. 

1 Writings of Thomas Paine, Conway Ed., vol. i., p. 89.. 



64 Washington and Lincoln 

ness. " x And the people understood what he 
meant. 

The third condition, was a consciousness of 
growing unity, which was much deeper than the 
people imagined, because it often struggled un- 
successfully to express itself. It was like the 
several streams, which, hidden in the marshes 
flow along separately, until they converge and form 
the larger stream. It found expression when a 
ship in the seventeenth century sailed from the 
James River to Salem for a cargo of corn. It 
appeared in the New England Confederation for 
mutual defence. It was seen later when the 
soldiers from the different colonies joined to form 
the common armies in the French War. It was 
strengthened as the population increased and the 
fringes of the settlements on the coast began to 
touch. It was accentuated by the widespread 
opposition in the colonies to the attempt at taxa- 
tion, until Patrick Henry in the First Continental 
Congress was able to say: "The distinctions 
between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, 
and New Englanders, are no more. I am not a 
Virginian but an American." 2 And finally, it 
was formally expressed in the Congress which 

1 Writings of Thomas Paine, Conway Ed., vol. i., p. 92. 
a Works of John Adams, vol. ii., p. 367. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 65 

gave forth the historic document of protest. For 
it is well to remember that this document was not 
as the term implies, merely a declaration of 
separation, but also an assertion in favour of 
confederation. 

Washington stands forth as the embodiment of 
this growing unity. And the evidence for this 
is found, where it is always best to find it, in the 
actions of his life. Following the Stamp Act 
agitation, he writes to his agent in London: 

If there are any articles contained in either of the 
respective invoices — which are taxed by act of Parlia- 
ment for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, 
it is my express desire and request that they may not 
be sent, as I have entered heartily into an association 
not to import any article which now is, or hereafter 
shall be taxed for this purpose until the said act or 
acts are repealed. 1 

And, five years later, he appeared at the famous 
meeting of the delegates from the counties of 
Virginia at Williamsburg, and delivered a speech 
which another declared was the most eloquent 
ever made, when he said: "I will raise a regiment 
of a thousand men at my own expense, and myself 
march at their head for the relief of Boston." 2 
That is, Washington was willing to join his in- 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 268. 
3 Works of John Adams, vol. ii., p. 360. 



66 Washington and Lincoln 

terests with those of men in the other colonies. 
He was willing to adjust his affairs, give of his 
substance, and offer his services, not merely for 
the welfare of his colony, but to advance the 
prosperity of all the colonies. This was the very 
essence of unity. 

Paine was keen enough an observer to detect 
this consciousness of growing unity. And so he 
appeals to them to make the most of it, when he 
warns them that the "Continental belt is too 
loosely buckled," 1 and he tells them again: 

'T is not in numbers but in unity that our great 
strength lies; yet our present numbers are sufficient 
to repel the force of all the world. The Continent 
hath at this time the largest body of armed and 
disciplined men of any power under heaven; and is 
just arrived at that pitch of strength in which no 
single colony is able to support itself, and the whole 
when united is able to do anything. 2 

And the people responded as he told them of that 
which they possessed. 

Fourth, there was a feeling of moral superiority. 
Or perhaps a better statement would be, there was 
a feeling that the condition of England as revealed 
in its political life was morally inferior. The 

1 Writings of Thomas Paine, vol. i., p. 1 1 7. 
* Ibid., p. 101. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 67 

Revolutionary leaders believed that not a little of 
their trouble was due to this cause. A reading of 
the pamphlets issued, or of the formal pronounce- 
ments of the Continental Congress makes this 
clear. Take this statement, made by the Congress 
in 1775, in the address to the Jamaica Assembly: 

In Britain, where the maxims of freedom were still 
known, but where luxury and dissipation had dimin- 
ished the wonted reverence for them, the attack 
has been carried on in a more secret and indirect 
manner. Corruption has been employed to under- 
mine them. The Americans are not enervated 
by effeminacy like the inhabitants of India; nor 
debauched by luxury like those of Great Britain. 1 

This is strong language to use of those in high 
places, yet the language is none too strong, when 
one turns the pages of English history for the 
eighteenth century as written by Horace Wal- 
pole, Lecky, Green, and others. Lecky uses still 
stronger language when he says, "that treachery 
and duplicity were common to most English 
statesmen between the Restoration and the 
American Revolution." 2 Pitt confessed the same 
thing when he said: "I borrow the Duke of 
Newcastle's majority to carry on the public 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 204. 

2 Lecky, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. i. t 
p. 228. 



68 Washington and Lincoln 

business." 1 And a reading of the debate follow- 
ing the introduction in 1780 of a resolution by 
Burke calling for a reform in the civil establish- 
ment, tells the same story, for it reveals a 
condition of corruption unequalled in English 
history. 

The Revolutionary leaders knew of these condi- 
tions through reports from their agents resident in 
London. They further saw evidence of these 
conditions reflected in the characters of many of 
the appointees of the Crown living in the colonies. 
The Revolutionary group was not morally above 
criticism in all its individual parts. It had a 
Franklin, whose writings can hardly be published 
to-day, unless in an expurgated edition. It 
had also a Jefferson, who for a time was so top 
heavy with free thought, that he felt it incumbent 
upon him to write the name of Deity with small 
letters, and whose later career showed serious 
moral delinquencies. But these men were excep- 
tional. It would be impossible to sweep back 
through the eighteenth century of colonial life 
and find a list of leaders that would equal in 
political corruption the English statesmen, Robert 
Walpole, Newcastle, Carteret, Chesterfield, Boling- 
broke, Fox, and Wilkes. There was a moral 

1 Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution, p. 30. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 69 

wholesomeness in colonial political life in marked 
contrast to that of English political life. 

More than this, the normal life of the Revo- 
lutionary leaders as expressed in political ser- 
vice, had its roots in deep religious conviction. 
One of the sayings of Washington often quoted 
is, "that morality without religion is dead." The 
men of this period believed this. The distinction 
is sometimes made between the French and 
American Revolutions to the effect that the French 
was social and the American was political. A 
better distinction would be that the French was 
philosophical in its origin and social in its expres- 
sion, and the American was religious in its origin 
and political in its expression. 

Much has been written to prove the origin of 
the political theories of the American Revolution. 
Some have found it in the writings of Rousseau. 
Others are sure that Locke was the source. Still 
others have found traces in Molyneaux or Har- 
rington. All of the answers are true to the extent 
that in these writings are thoughts similar to 
those expressed in the Revolutionary period. But 
the reader is surprised as he examines the writings 
of the Revolutionary leaders, to find how rarely any 
of these thinkers are mentioned or quoted. The 
exception to this is in Blackstone's exposition of 



70 Washington and Lincoln 

the Great Charter published in 1765, which gave 
an interpretation in the light of the Revolutions of 
1640 and 1688. Undoubtedly this influenced the 
American thinkers in writing the "bills of rights. " 
Burke, in making his great speech of 1775 on 
conciliation, testifies to the influence of Blackstone 
when he says: "I hear that they (English pub- 
lishers) have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's 
Commentaries in America as in England. General 
Gage marks out this disposition very particularly 
in a letter on your table. " x 

The more simple, and certainly the more easily 
traced answer is, that the political ideas of this 
period had their origin in the religious convictions 
and ecclesiastical experiences of the people. The 
little church at Plymouth had the compact theory 
in working order half a century before Locke 
wrote his Two Treatises on Government. The 
Scotch and Scotch-Irish on the fringe of the 
Appalachian Mountains knew about the covenant 
idea, which came from Geneva and had been 
accepted by their ancestors in Scotland and Ire- 
land, two centuries before Rousseau, himself a 
native of Geneva, wrote his Social Contract. 2 

1 British Orations, vol. i., p. 277. 

2 For discussion of "covenant idea" in relation to government, 
see A. C. McLaughlin's "A Written Constitution in Some of its 
Historical Aspects," Michigan Law Review, vol. v., June, 1907. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 71 

Jellinek, in his remarkable essay in which an 
attempt is made to prove the origin of the famous 
Declaration of Rights adopted by the French 
Assembly in 1789, says: 

The idea of legally establishing inalienable, inherent, 
and sacred rights of the individual is not of political 
but religious origin. What has been held to be a 
work of the Revolution (French) was in reality a fruit 
of the Reformation and its struggles. Its first apostle 
was not Lafayette but Roger Williams, who driven 
by powerful and deep religious enthusiasm, went into 
the wilderness in order to found a government of 
religious liberty, and his name is uttered by Americans 
even to-day with the deepest respect. * 

The fact is, the truths of a period are more often 
found in institutions than in books. The great 
work of Calvin, which influenced the Puritan 
Reformation in England, was carried across the 
channel from Europe by English and Scotch 
scholars, not because they read it in his Institutes, 
but because they visited Geneva and studied it as 
an institution. And to-day the student of the 
Revolutionary period does well to pay less attention 
to Rousseau and Locke, and more attention to 
the history of the little "white meeting houses" 
with their forms of organisation and church 
covenants. Again to quote Jellinek: 

1 Jellinek, Rights of Man and of Citizen, p. 77. 



72 Washington and Lincoln 

Literature alone never produces anything, unless it 
finds in the historical and social conditions ground 
for its working. When one shows the literary origin 
of an idea, one has by no means therewith discovered 
the record of its practical significance. The history 
of political science to-day is entirely too much a 
history of the literature and too little a history of the 
institutions themselves. • 

Paine understood this. He correctly discerned 
the feeling of moral superiority, which has its 
source in deep religious convictions and ecclesi- 
astical experiences. He had been from England 
but two years, when he wrote Common Sense, and 
doubtless he was familiar with Rousseau and Locke. 
But in stating the historical origin of the compact 
theory he never mentions either. His statement 
is faulty, but in finding the origin in the Old 
Testament, he appealed to the thought of his day. 
He wrote in the language of a people that believed 
in a conception of government founded upon the 
Word of God. And while there is no evidence that 
Washington ever bothered his head about the 
theological argument for the covenant theory, 
yet as he enters the House of God by the roadside 
in Virginia, and spends the day in fasting and 
prayer, in preparation for the mighty struggle, he 
seems to stand forth as the type of religious 

'Jellinek, Rights of Man and of Citizen, p. 57. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 73 

earnestness, that gave to the movement a force 
that was irresistible. x 

Finally, there was an advanced ideal of political 
freedom. There are two statements often made, 
in one form or another, which have in them a 
wealth of meaning. One is that in the American 
Revolution, the England of the seventeenth cen- 
tury met and maintained itself against the England 
of the eighteenth. The other is that the people 
of the colonies, the freest people then on earth, 
insisted on, and deserved a larger freedom. Both 
these statements as broad generalisations are true. 
And being true, they carry with them certain 
implications. The first is, that if the colonies 
stood for the seventeenth century ideal, then this 
was freer than the eighteenth. Another is, that 
the ideal of the eighteenth century in England 
marks a retrograde movement in its political 
life. And still another is, that in the clash of the 
ideals of the two centuries, is found the political 
interpretation of the Revolution. 

As was stated in considering the moral superior- 
ity of the colonies, the dominant theory of govern- 
ment was that which came from the Puritan 
Reformation, and which found expression in the 
ecclesiastical forms and theological creeds. It is 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 415. 



74 Washington and Lincoln 

interesting to trace this theory as it is taken over 
into government in the early days, as, for example, 
by Thomas Hooker, and to see how it acted upon 
political organisations. And as the influence is 
studied, the one outstanding fact in colonial 
life is the growing participation of the people in 
affairs of government. It was seen in the town 
meetings of New England, then in the assemblies 
of the colonies, and finally in the supreme act of 
the Revolutionary era — the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. For the Declaration was not given to 
the world by a group of men that exercised its 
judgment as a representative body, but by a group 
which received definite instructions from the 
people speaking through conventions and as- 
semblies. 

While this development was taking place in 
the colonies, a retrograde movement was taking 
place in England. When this began is not clear. 
Some have placed the beginning of the movement 
at the coronation of George the Third. The 
reason for this is, that about the time of the 
coronation of this king, the Tory Party after a 
long absence, returned to power. However, this 
is probably not correct. Although during the 
first half of the eighteenth century, the Whigs who 
were in power, stood for government by Parlia- 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 75 

ment, as over against unlimited power by the 
king, yet Parliament meant for them not a repre- 
sentative body through which the people spoke, 
but an agency by which certain great families 
controlled the government. And it is not without 
some significance that the authors of the two 
obnoxious acts which led up to the Revolution, 
namely, Grenville and Townshend, were Whigs, 
though serving under a Tory king. x 

So the better statement would be, that, 
following the Restoration in the seventeenth 
century, a movement away from the Puritan 
conception of government began, which was 
accentuated by the coronation of George the 
Third in the eighteenth century, and reached its 
height as the Tory Party coming into power dur- 
ing his reign, encouraged him in the extreme use 
of prerogative. 

As the result of the development of the seven- 
teenth century ideas in the colonies was seen 
in the growing participation of the people in 
government, so the result of the retrograde move- 
ment away from these same ideas in England was 
seen in the failure to appreciate the meaning of 
the absence of government by the people. A 
striking illustration of this is seen in the argument 

1 Bernard Holland, Imperium et Liber tas, p. 24. 



76 Washington and Lincoln 

of Mansfield on virtual representation. In the 
House of Commons in the year 1774, there were 
513 members. Of these, 254 members represented 
less than 1 1,500 voters, and 56 members, 700 votes. 
And of these 56 members not one had as many as 
38 electors and 6 not more than 3. The County of 
Middlesex, including London and Westminster, 
returned 8 members and Cornwall 44 members. 1 
This condition was not created during the reign 
of George the Third. It existed in the seventeenth 
century, and against it Locke uttered his protest. 2 
But had the leavening influence of the Reformation 
period of the seventeenth century been in the 
political lump, this condition would have been 
modified by the time of George's accession to 
power. And when Mansfield spoke in favour of 
this sort of representation, attempting to justify 
it on constitutional grounds, it is little wonder that 
in America some grew impatient of searching 
"amid musty parchments." He was using a 
language that the colonies did not understand. 
There was nothing in their political life to corres- 
pond to it. They had gone so far beyond it, that 
they could not see that which was left behind. 
And so, in attempting to extend the system of 

1 Lecky, History of England in Eighteenth Century, vol. iii., 
p. 372. 3 Works of John Locke, vol. v., p. 432. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 77 

imperial control under the influence of this retro- 
grade movement, the inevitable clash came in the 
Revolution, whose outcome was colonial indepen- 
dence. 

Just what was the position of Washington as 
regards political freedom? Did he believe in the 
England of the seventeenth century, reappearing 
under development in the colonial life of the 
eighteenth century? He accepted, of course, the 
colonial position as to taxation and representation. 
But so did such men as Dulany and Galloway, 
who refused to accept the Declaration. Did he 
throw in his lot with the Revolutionary leaders as 
the lesser of two evils? Was he really an aristo- 
crat who lacked faith in the people, but decided 
all things considered, to stand with the people? 
These are interesting questions. The disposition 
on the part of many historical writers, is to lay 
stress upon Washington the soldier, and to ignore 
him as the statesman. As a result, Washington 
at this time in his career is seen with his cloak 
wrapped about him, standing in the stern of the 
boat, as it makes its way through the floating 
ice of the Delaware River. But rarely is he seen 
in the attitude of quiet meditation on the affairs 
of government. 

It is true that as the student compares the 



78 Washington and Lincoln 

writings of Washington with those of Jefferson, 
John Adams, or Franklin, he notes an absence of 
philosophical discussion. Yet in his writings 
there is enough suggested, when taken with his 
actions, to enable the student to form a fairly 
complete picture. There is the letter written in 
October, 1774, to Robert MacKenzie, an old army- 
friend, who had taken the loyalist side of the 
controversy, and joined the British army at Bos- 
ton. He wrote Washington in August making 
some derogatory mention of the New England 
leader, which disturbed Washington, as he, and 
other southern leaders, felt a little uneasy about 
Sam Adams and his associates from the North. 
But with characteristic fairness and thoroughness, 
upon reaching Philadelphia, he called at their 
lodgings and spent the evening with them, with 
the result that Washington's reply sent to Mac- 
Kenzie, shows him entirely favourable to Adams 
and his friends, and reveals the quiet Virginian 
in substantial agreement with the aggressive New 
Englanders in the movement toward reconcilia- 
tion through united action, even to the extent of 
armed resistance. 1 

There is also the moment in the spring day in 
June, 1 775, when he modestly arose in the Congress, 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 441. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 79 

and accepted the command of the army. 1 If the 
saying is true, that actions speak louder than 
words, then this action of Washington in turning 
his back upon his ample estates, and committing 
himself, if needs be, unto death, to "the glorious 
cause," is filled with profound meaning. Such 
action has its roots in conviction. And as Wash- 
ington, seen leaving the Congress, is followed on 
the weary marches, and in the conflict of many 
battlefields, the inference is surely reasonable, 
that along with others, he accepted the fundamen- 
tal contention of the period, and believed, that 
the colonies with their conception of freedom, 
so opposed to that prevailing in England, were 
justified in seeking their independence. 

And then there is Paine's pamphlet entitled 
Common Sense, written in the winter of 1776. 
Washington's commendation of it, as "sound in 
argument and unanswerable in reasoning," has 
been something of a stumbling block to those who 
would picture him as the reserved aristocrat, 
having little confidence in the people. It does 
seem a bit strange to connect Washington with 
Paine and his theory of simple democracy. Of 
course, it will not do to make too much of an 
isolated commendation. However, lest it be sup- 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. ii., p. 92. 



80 Washington and Lincoln 

posed that he was under a momentary enthusiasm, 
or reached his conviction regarding the people for 
the first time by reading Paine, it may be well to 
recall, that six months before, in his letter to 
General Gage, in speaking of his own commission 
in the army, he says: "You affect Sir, to despise 
all rank not derived from the same source with 
your own. I cannot conceive one more honourable 
than that which flows from the uncorrupted choice 
of a brave and free people, the purest source and 
fountain of all power. " x 

It is sometimes suggested, and with reason, that 
Washington reached his position regarding govern- 
ment in the Revolutionary period, without caring 
much for the speculative and constitutional 
aspects of the question. In mentioning the ques- 
tion of taxation and representation in one of his 
letters in 1765, he refers to the " speculative part 
of the colonists." 2 In another letter written in 
1774, he modestly disclaims possessing any legal 
knowledge and says: "Whilst much abler heads 
than my own hath fully convinced me that it is 
. . . subversive of the laws and constitution of 
Great Britain. " 3 But if Washington seems never 
to have threaded his way through the intricate 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. iii., p. 91. 

2 Ibid., vol. ii., p. 209. 3 Ibid., p. 435. 



The Revolutionary Group of 1776 81 

windings of constitutional precedent, yet he early 
reached the conclusion that such taxation was 
against nature and therefore wrong. And this 
was precisely the position which the Revolutionary 
leaders, after insisting upon "ancient, charter, and 
constitutional rights," finally took. 

If it be suggested, that the simplicity and direct- 
ness with which Washington based the whole 
question from the first upon natural right, implies 
a poverty of thought on his part, the answer is 
that he uses about the same language that the 
mighty Pitt, and the profound Camden, as quoted 
in the preceding chapter, used. Pitt said: "At 
the same time this kingdom, as the supreme govern- 
ing and legislative power, had always bound the 
colonies by the laws . . . in everything, except that 
of taking their money out of their pockets without 
their consent." 1 Washington said: "I think the 
Parliament of Great Britain hath no more right 
to put their hands into my pocket without my 
consent, than I have to put my hands into yours 
for money." 2 Camden said: "My position is 
this . . . taxation and representation are in- 
separable. This position is founded on the law 
of nature. It is more, it is in itself an eternal 

1 Cf. p. 30. 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. ii., p. 420. 
6 



82 Washington and Lincoln 

law of nature." 1 Washington said: "An innate 
spirit of freedom first told me, that the measures 
. . . are repugnant to every principle of natural 
justice." 2 

And so in concluding the study of the Revolu- 
tionary group of 1776, it may be said that its 
attitude was one of protest against the theory of 
the Parliamentary group regarding power in 
government. The reason for this protest is found 
in certain conditions of colonial life; the sense of 
vastness, the fact of distance, the growing con- 
sciousness of unity, the feeling of moral superiority, 
and the advanced conception of political freedom. 
And as Washington was the dominant personality 
in the group that made the protest, so was he 
also the nearest approach to the embodiment of 
the conditions that explain the protest. 

1 Cf. p. 32. 

3 Writings of Washington, Fcrd Ed., vol. ii., p. 435. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 

It is a familiar fact in history, that great men 
move in the direction of unusual events, which, 
though just ahead, are not anticipated, but which 
when reached, are accepted as inevitable. And 
history offers no finer illustration of this fact than 
Washington in relation to the two great events of 
his career, the Declaration of Independence and 
the Constitution of the United States. On his 
way to the Continental Congress in 1774, and 
moving in the direction of the Declaration of 
Independence, Washington did not anticipate it, 
for he wrote a friend at this time, "that no think- 
ing man in North America desired independence;" 
but in 1776 he accepted the same as inevitable 
and proceeded with the army under his com- 
mand, to make it effective. 

Again in 1785, Washington did not catch the 
significance of events as from the threshold of his 
ample home he welcomed the commissioners of 
Maryland and Virginia, who came to discuss the 
navigation of the Potomac River. 1 Yet within 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. x., p. 371, note. 
83 



84 Washington and Lincoln 

the walls of his mansion, plans were adopted which 
involved another and larger meeting the following 
year at Annapolis. And when from this larger 
meeting the call for a convention was issued, he 
responded to the same, and in 1787 started on his 
second historic journey from Mt. Vernon to 
Philadelphia, accepting the fact, that the time 
had come to act in amending the frame of 
government. 

With this thought in his mind, let us think 
of him as he entered the city by the Delaware 
on the May morning in 1787. Thirteen years 
had passed since he first visited the city as a 
member of the Continental Congress — as many 
years as there were States in the Confederation. 
About him were reminders of those days. There 
was the famous hall in which he presented his 
credentials as a deputy from Virginia. Smith's 
tavern was still standing, which had been the 
favourite rendezvous of the celebrated leaders. 
To the northward ran the highway, along which he 
passed, on the memorable day when he received 
his commission as commander of the army. It 
must be that the rather slow imagination of his 
massive nature kindled amid such reminders of 
other days. But Washington was not the man to 
lose himself in the memories of the past. He 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 85 

was essentially a man of action, and the present 
for him was all important. 

Perhaps as he drew near the city, there was in 
his pocket the last newspaper from Boston, giving 
in more detail the facts of the recent Shays Rebel- 
lion, which prompted him to write that, "there are 
combustibles in every state, which a spark might 
set fire to ... I feel . . . infinitely more than I 
can express to you the disorders which have arisen 
in these states." 1 It is possible, that as he 
sought the place of meeting, he saw boys tying 
continental paper money to a dog's tail, or noticed 
some of the money pasted on the walls of a barber- 
shop, thus reminding him, in a ridiculous manner 
to be sure, that instead of national credit there was 
only financial weakness. 2 

Doubtless as he talked with others gathered 
for the convention, and listened to the reports 
of conditions in their States, the conviction settled 
down upon his mind, like the damp fog coming 
in from the sea, that the former unified enthusiasm 
no longer existed. The States were now more 
interested in independence through local assem- 
blies, than in government by confederation. And 



1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 103. 

2 A. C. McLaughlin's The Confederation and the Constitution, 
p. 56. 



86 Washington and Lincoln 

the Congress of the Confederation, as he knew, was 
like a clock, which in need of winding, strikes the 
hour but faintly, and soon will cease even to 
strike. 

Think of him also, as he entered the convention 
hall and looked over the company assembled. 
How many from the earlier days were missing? 
Sam Adams was not in the rear of the room plan- 
ning with others some forward move. Patrick 
Henry was not on his feet welding the various 
interests into a single impulse by his superb 
oratory. Thomas Jefferson who had entered the 
Continental Congress as Washington left it, was 
not in his seat putting the finishing touches to 
some document. John Adams was not taking 
notes preparatory to leading some great debate. 
And Tom Paine was not on the outside trying to 
convince some cautious member of the need for 
more radical action. * The personnel of the leader- 
ship had changed. Only six men who had signed 
the Declaration of Independence were to sign the 
document of this convention. 

Benjamin Franklin, the aged diplomatist, just 
home after a brilliant career in France, was there. 

1 Paine according to his biographer, was responsible for the 
clause in the original draft of the Declaration against slavery. 
It was stricken out as too radical. Conway's Life of Paine, vol. 
i., p. 80. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 87 

Robert Morris, the seasoned financier who had 
often watched the treasury when it needed no 
watching because of lack of funds was in his 
seat. Roger Sherman, who began life as a shoe- 
maker, rising by sheer merit to a position of 
commanding influence in his State, and James 
Wilson, the speculative Scotsman, whose theories 
were as sensible as they were daring were both 
members. 

Along with these veterans of the former struggle, 
was a company of younger recruits. 1 Rufus 
King, the able statesman with his inspiring vision 
of national greatness; William Paterson, who 
never faltered in his devotion to the smaller 
States even at the expense of the larger; Edmund 
Randolph, who presented one of the constitu- 
tional plans for discussion, but which plan was so 
changed that he refused to sign it ; the Pinckneys 
of South Carolina, who were to this convention 
what the "brace of Adamses" had been to the 
Continental Congress ; Gouverneur Morris, whose 
impulses were sometimes in excess of his judgment, 



1 William Pierce of Georgia, did for the Constitutional conven- 
tion, what John Adams in his "Familiar Letters" did for the 
Continental Congress. He seems to have been specially inter- 
ested in the ages of the members. And if his statements are 
correct the average age was about forty. See foot notes to 
Madison's Journal. 



88 Washington and Lincoln 

and who gave to the document its final literary 
form; James Madison, the thorough student of 
govemm nt, who took a seat near the front and 
by his reports saved the records for posterity 1 ; 
and Alexander Hamilton easily the most brilliant 
man in the company, with an influence which 
did not become decisive until the convention 
adjourned. 2 

Then think of Washington in the convention, 
as he takes his place upon the platform to 
preside over its deliberations. The Journal of 
Madison says that a quorum having been counted 
a motion was made and passed without a dissent- 
ing voice, electing him the presiding officer. 3 
Does this mean that he is the commanding person- 
ality of this era, as he had been of the Revolution- 
ary era? From another hall, less than a stone's 
throw away, he had some years before, with 
becoming modesty hurried out, when the Conti- 
nental Congress turned to him as commander-in- 
chief to make effective on the field of battle the 

1 "In pursuance of the task I had assumed, I chose a seat in 
front of the presiding member. ... In this favourable position 
for hearing all that passed, I noted in terms legible . . . what was 
read from the chair or spoken by the members." Madison's 
Writings, vol. ii., p. 410. 

1 Gertrude Atherton's novel, The Conqueror, should be read 
for its description of Hamilton. 

J Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. i., p. 3. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 89 

protest they were uttering. And now in this era, 
of constructive governmental action do they 
by this act, repose the same confidence in his 
judgment and character? 

Of course too much or not enough may be made 
of the fact that he was elected presiding officer. 
Too much may be made of his position in this era, 
by forgetting that the suggestion for this conven- 
tion did not come from him. It probably came 
from Hamilton. 1 Neither was the conception of 
government which took shape in the convention, 
his product. The credit for this, if given to any 
man, belongs to Pelatiah Webster. 2 In the 
discussions as recorded in the Journal, he took 
little part, and offered no contribution. In the 
gathering, were men who in certain particulars 
were his superiors. James Wilson was keener 
in debate; Rufus King's imagination was more 
glowing; James Madison had read more widely; 
Alexander Hamilton was more resourceful; and 
Benjamin Franklin's experience was more varied. 

However, if the student needs to be on his guard, 
lest he place an excessive emphasis upon Washing- 
ton's position in this era, he needs also to be careful 

1 Works of Hamilton, J. C. Hamilton, vol. i., p. 150 ff. 
a Hannis Taylor, Origin and Growth of American Constitution, 
Appendix xi. 



90 Washington and Lincoln 

lest he goes to the other extreme. There are 
those who picture him as the American gentleman 
with English traditions who was forced to leave the 
retirement of his plantation and lend his influence 
to a movement that he knew little about. They 
portray him as dozing now and then in the con- 
vention while members in debate drew heavily 
upon their learning, and quoted the experiments in 
European governments, even as he dozed at an 
earlier period while his portrait was being painted. x 
He knew what was meant when the commissioners 
met at Mt. Vernon and talked about the naviga- 
tion of the Potomac River. He understood the 
import of the discussion when at Annapolis in 
1786, the commercial situation in the States was 
considered. But when the movement widened 
into one for the call of a convention to frame a 
new government it went beyond him. To be sure, 
he was elected President of the convention, and 
the election was a wise one; because, owing to his 
military career, his influence was such as to make 

1 "Inclination having yielded to importunity, I am now 
contrary to all expectation under the hands of Mr. Peale; but 
in so grave — so sullen a mood — and now and then under the 
influence of Morpheus, when some critical strokes are making, 
that I fancy the skill of this gentleman's pencil will be put to it, 
in describing to the world what manner of man I am. " To Dr. 
Boucher, May 21, 1772. Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. 
ii., p. 349. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 91 

his presence count for much. This is the washed 
out picture that some draw of the great leader 
in 1787. 

But the true picture of Washington in this period 
has lines that are clearer and colours that are 
stronger. It is drawn not alone from material 
provided in this one act. Men could never forget 
the blue uniform and buff trimmings of the general. 
Neither could these things hide the rich and full 
nature of the man. Others, who in certain par- 
ticulars were his superiors, turned to him because 
his personality was so commanding that it drew 
them to itself, as the magnet draws the steel 
filings. Hamilton in writing to him four years 
before said: "I will add that your Excellency's 
exertions are as essential to accomplish this end 
as they have been to establish independence." 1 
Two months before the convention met Knox 
wrote: "I am persuaded that your name has had 
already great influence to induce the states to 
come into the measure — and that it would more 
than any other circumstance induce a compliance 
with the propositions of the convention." 2 And 
after the convention had been in session two 
months, and rumours of serious differences began 

1 Works of Hamilton, J. C. Hamilton, vol. i., p. 349. 

2 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 123 note. 



92 Washington and Lincoln 

to reach the public, Monroe in writing to Jefferson 
said: 

But I trust that the presence of General Washington 
will have great weight in the body itself, so as to over- 
run and keep under the demon of party, and that the 
signature of his name to whatever act shall be the 
result of their deliberations, will secure its passage 
through the Union. J 

With such testimony before us, it may be said, 
that it was his influence which led to the calling 
of the convention, held it together during a critical 
period, and after adjournment made it possible 
for its document to be adopted. And more than 
this may be claimed: It is known that he kept 
pace with the progressive thought in his day re- 
garding the need of a stronger government. While 
other great leaders from the Revolutionary era, 
such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry still 
speculated on liberty and its meaning, he moved 
forward to the region of government. A few 
weeks before the convention assembled in Phila- 
delphia, he examined the drafts of a proposed 
constitution, as prepared by Pinckney, Madison, 
and Hamilton, and tabulated the results. 2 He 
was convinced that the advance registered through 

1 Writings of James Monroe, Hamilton Ed., vol. i., p. 173. 
a North American Review, vol. xxv., p. 263. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 93 

protest in 1776 could be made permanent, only as 
a stronger government was established. When the 
convention came together his hope was that it 
would "probe the defects of the constitution to the 
bottom and provide a radical cure. ' ' 1 Power was 
needed, and by power he meant to accept Hamil- 
ton's definition given later in The Federalist, 
"the faculty and ability of doing a thing." 2 

His position on the need of a stronger govern- 
ment may be illustrated by a story which James 
Wilson told. 

The business which we are told was entrusted 
to the late convention was merely to amend the 
Articles of Confederation. This observation had been 
frequently made, and has brought to my mind, a 
story that is told of Mr. Pope, who, it is well-known, 
was not a little deformed. It was customary with 
him, to use this expression, "God mend me!" when 
any little accident happened. One evening a little 
boy was lighting him along and coming to a gutter, 
the boy jumped nimbly over it. Mr. Pope called to 
him to turn, adding "God mend me!" The arch 
rogue turning to light him, looked at him and re- 
peated "God mend you? He would sooner make 
half a dozen new ones." This would apply to the 
present Confederation ; for it would be easier to make 
another than to mend this. 3 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 134. 

2 Federalist No. 33. 

3 Elliott's Debates, vol. ii., p. 470. 



94 Washington and Lincoln 

There remains one further question, before 
considering the work of the Constitutional group, 
and that is, was Washington able from experience 
or observation, to derive any assistance, in form- 
ing a judgment as to the wisdom of the govern- 
mental plan evolved from the debates in the 
convention? There are two statements about the 
Constitution, which taken by themselves would 
imply that it came forth full-orbed from some 
individual or collective brain. One is De Toc- 
queville's statement to the effect that it is a 
"novel theory, which may be considered as a 
great invention in modern political science. Ml 
The other is Gladstone's famous comparison, in 
which, having mentioned the British constitution 
as "the most subtle organism which has proceeded 
from progressive history," he then refers to the 
American Constitution as "the most wonderful 
work ever struck off at a given time by the brain 
and purpose of man." 2 

But these statements are only true in part, for 
it may be doubted whether Washington as he 
presided over the convention, believed that a 

1 De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Bigelow Ed., vol. i., 
p. 151. 

3 The writer has often seen this statement in print, but has been 
unable to find it in any of Gladstone's writings at his disposal. 
Morley does not use it. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 95 

"great invention," or something "struck off at a 
given time," was being produced. Recent history 
was pressing upon his mind as a cumulative in- 
fluence, and was furnishing the convention material 
with which to construct a government. 

The first fact in this recent history was the 
experiment made by the Parliamentary group, and 
which broke down under the protest of the Revo- 
lutionary group. He must have been impressed 
by the similarity of the problem that the early 
group had, with the problem which this Con- 
stitutional group had. In each era this problem 
was created by the victorious termination of a 
war. The treaty in 1763, forced a radical change 
of colonial policy upon England. The treaty in 
1783, created the possibilities of empire for the 
young nation in America, and compelled a radical 
governmental change in order to realise these 
possibilities. And it is not difficult to believe that 
the great leader caught the significance of this 
historic parallelism, and was guided in some 
measure by it. 

The second fact in this recent history, and even 
more important, was that the people during the 
Revolution, and apart from it, had been making 
history of their own. In this history they had 
been assembling the material for the construction 



96 Washington and Lincoln 

of an imperial government. This material, now 
placed at the disposal of Washington and the 
others in the convention was fourfold. 

First, there was the material furnished by the 
formation of the Continental Congress which 
existed from 1774 until 1781. How far this 
Congress carried the people in the States along 
the pathway toward an organic union of the States 
cannot be known. To what extent it was over- 
shadowed by the stern realities of a war is uncer- 
tain. But that it marked a culminating point in 
a growing consciousness of unity which had been 
going on for many years is beyond doubt. For the 
people it was the symbol of a nation. It accus- 
tomed the people to the idea of general as distinct 
from local power, although the people would have 
insisted that there was no power save as it was 
local. But whatever the theory might be, the 
fact was, that the Congress, under certain limita- 
tions, exercised the powers of a sovereign state, 
even though these powers were only temporarily 
exercised. 

Second, there was the material furnished by the 
Articles of Confederation, which, strictly speaking, 
constitute the first constitution of the United 
States. From 1781 until 1787, these "Articles" 
were thoroughly tested, and found inadequate to 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 97 

meet the "exigencies of the Union." The reason 
for this, as noted elsewhere, was the absence of a 
coercive power. But although the Articles of 
Confederation as thus tested proved inadequate, 
they made one significant contribution to govern- 
mental theory, which was used in the convention 
of 1787. This was the definition made of inter- 
state citizenship, by which the citizens in one State 
were to have all the rights given to citizens in 
any State. x 

Third, there was the material furnished by the 
creation of a national domain. 2 The fundamental 
expression of this was in the ordinance under which 
the North-west territory was organised, which was 
adopted in the year in which the Federal conven- 
tion assembled. To Maryland belongs the credit 
for exerting the most telling influence, which in 
turn led to this imperial enactment by a nation 
scarcely conscious of its imperial destiny. For at 
a critical time when a general government was 
imperatively needed, Maryland stood firm, and 
refused to adopt the Articles of Confederation, 
unless the States relinquished their claims to the 
western land. 3 By successfully insisting upon 

1 Articles of Confederation, Art. iv., Section I. 
9 Journals of Congress, vol. ix., p. 807. 
' Ibid., vol. xiv., pp. 619-622. 



98 Washington and Lincoln 

this condition, the national domain was created. x 
And in creating this domain the imagination of the 
people was appealed to. As in the days before 
the Revolution the people's imagination was 
touched by the existence of a vast domain, so in 
the days following the Revolution the imagination 
of the people was kindled by the fact that this 
domain had become national. In 1787, common 
ownership in lands was a term to conjure with. 

Fourth, there was the material furnished in the 
constitutions adopted by the States, through the 
use of constituent conventions. These consti- 
tutions were more readily accepted by the people 
than the Federal Constitution later, because in 
them they supposed they had found instruments 
with which to defend themselves against the 
encroachments of government. This idea of a 
written constitution was borrowed from the French 
political philosophers, although the application 
of the idea was first made in America. 

But if the idea of a written constitution as a 
weapon of defence was borrowed from the French, 



1 This fact impressed De Tocqueville fifty years later. He 
says: "If America ever approached (for however brief a time) 
that lofty pinnacle of glory to which the fancy of its inhabitants 
is wont to point, it was the solemn moment at which the power of 
the nation abdicated, as it were, the empire of the land. " Democ- 
racy in America, Bigelow Ed., vol. i., p. 107. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 99 

much that was embodied in the application of 
the idea was taken from the English. As a writer 
on constitutional law says : "The best epitomes of 
the reformed English constitution ever written are 
to be found in the Bills of Rights of our first state 
constitutions, drafted by men who knew perfectly 
what rights were fundamental at that time." 1 
And by the "reformed English constitution" 
the writer of course means the Great Charter as 
modified by the Revolutions of 1640 and 1688. 

However, the early State constitutions differed 
from the English in two particulars. First, they 
went further in the enumeration of the rights of 
the individual. They enumerate the right of 
religious liberty, of freedom of the press, of as- 
sembling, and of free movement. These are not 
found in the English constitution. Second, they 
found another basis for the rights of the individual. 
In the English, the individual comes into his 
rights through the state. But in the American, 
"all men are by nature equally free and indepen- 
dent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, 
when they enter into a state of society, they 
cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their 
posterity. " 2 This conception of the rights of the 

1 Hannis Taylor, Origin and Growth of the American Constitution, 
p. 369. 2 Virginia Bill of Rights, of 1776, Section I. 



ioo Washington and Lincoln 

individual came to them, as was suggested in the 
preceding chapter, from the religious conceptions 
of the people, derived from the Reformation, and 
expressed in ecclesiastical institutions. Where men 
protest in "the name of the eternal laws of man's 
being," it is time to look elsewhere than in books 
or musty parchments. Jellinek is indeed justified 
in saying that a " deep cleft separates the American 
declarations from the English enactments." 1 

But interesting as is the question of the philoso- 
phy of government expressed in the State constitu- 
tions, it was not the question uppermost in the mind 
of Washington in 1787. This is seen in the fact 
that the Constitution adopted omitted any men- 
tion of a bill of rights. This was added by amend- 
ment, and only because of the popular demand 
that arose for it. The question that pressed upon 
him for answer was the immediately practical one : 
How to frame a new government with strength 
enough to meet the "exigencies of the Union. " 

This practical question gave three aspects of 
the State constitutions a special interest. The 
first was the fact that these constitutions were 
written, and as such were the first known to 
history. The second was the method of their adop- 
tion, by constituent conventions in some States. 

' Jellinek, Rights of Man and of Citizens, p. 46. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 10 1 

The third was the contents of the governments or- 
ganised under these constitutions. This third was 
undoubtedly the aspect that most interested him. 
It is not difficult to imagine Washington fram- 
ing the argument as regards national relations 
as men to-day frame the argument as regards in- 
ternational relations. To-day, men say that if 
the States have their separate constitutions under 
which their affairs are adjusted, and if all the 
States have a common constitution under which 
affairs concerning all the people in the States may 
be adjusted, why not an international constitution 
for the adjustment of affairs between the nations? 
In 1787, Washington with other thoughtful men 
argued, that if the town meetings of Massachu- 
setts can frame a government with power as 
expressed in a written constitution, why cannot the 
States frame a general government with power 
also expressed in a written constitution? The 
question was answered by working from the parts 
to the whole, and the parts were borrowed in order 
to make the whole. And because of this, students 
are justified in saying, that the adoption of the 
constitutions by the States is the distinctive fea- 
ture in the Revolutionary era. l 

1 There is a thorough discussion of this in Bryce, American 
Commonwealth, vol. i., part 2. 



102 Washington and Lincoln 

With this portrayal of Washington meeting with, 
and exerting a commanding influence over the 
men in this era, together with the thoughts that 
influenced his thinking, let us now consider the 
central problem in this period, as revealed in the 
convention's debates, and the solution offered in 
its product, namely, the Constitution of the 
United States. 

First, granting that power was needed in the 
general government, where and how should it be 
lodged? The question was not whether there 
should be any power in government, for at this 
time there was plenty. Washington writing to 
David Stuart, July I, 1787 said: "Persuaded I 
am, that the primary cause of all our disorder lies 
in the different state governments, and in the 
tenacity of that power which pervades the whole 
of their systems. " * The experience of the genera- 
tions had taught the people the need and use of 
power, even though they were disposed to accept 
Paine' s theory that government was a necessary 
evil. But while there was abundance of power in 
government, yet it was localised in the States 
forming the Union, to the exclusion of any central 
power in the Union formed by the States. 

To be sure, the people after the Declaration of 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 160. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 103 

Independence, believed that the nation was some- 
thing more than the sum total of the thirteen 
States. The willingness of the States to surrender 
title to the western lands for the creation of a 
national domain was evidence of this. But to 
express it in the form of a paradox, they were 
willing to recognise something which they did 
not admit. They were suspicious of any scheme of 
government that permitted the power to pass 
beyond local control. 

So when the nation was given form in the 
Articles of Confederation, power in two vital 
particulars was withheld, namely, the power to 
tax and the power to regulate commerce. In 
other words, a government might be formed which 
was general in scope, but its power must be local. 
They had won their independence by insisting 
that power in the parts of the empire was co-ordi- 
nate, as distinct from the contention that power 
in one part was absolute. 

Having rejected the theory of absolute power 
in the whole of the old empire, as lodged at the 
centre, the question of the distribution of power in 
the parts of the new empire awaited an answer. 
An empire could not long exist and expand with 
power only in the parts. Some sort of imperial 
control must be established, which would at once 



104 Washington and Lincoln 

retain the results of the protest made, and at the 
same time meet the conditions following the pro- 
test. 

To accomplish this, power must be so lodged as 
to reconcile the local liberty of the States, with a 
central authority over the people in the States. 
And it was not merely the question of lodging 
power in the whole, but also, the more difficult 
question of how so to lodge it, as not to destroy the 
power in the parts. And to realize this, the States 
must relinquish some power. For as Madison said : 
"An individual independence of the states is utterly 
irreconcilable with an aggregate sovereignty." 1 

It needs to be remembered, that the men 
who came together and asked the States to sur- 
render some power, namely, that of taxation and 
control of commerce, did so for the sake of the 
States. They were not at this time, primarily 
citizens of an indefinite, yet in a sense, real nation, 
but citizens of the States forming the nation. The 
States were in jeopardy. They were in danger of 
losing the respect of the world through the failure 
to pay their debts which had been contracted by 
them when acting as a nation. Their commerce 
was being injured by the nations of Europe, which 
nations could attack this commerce, as a united 

* Writings of James Madison, Hunt Ed., vol ii., p. 337. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 105 

army attacks and defeats detached portions of the 
opposing army. Something must be done. Team 
work was needed. * 

Washington felt the importance of this as 
perhaps no other member of the Constitutional 
group, unless it be Robert Morris. Eight years of 
war had been the tragic school in which he had 
learned this lesson. Four years before, he sud- 
denly appeared among the officers at Newburgh, 
and drew "his written address from his pocket and 
his spectacles with his other hand, from his waist- 
coat pocket, and then addressed the officers in the 
following manner: 'Gentlemen, you will permit 
me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only 
grown grey, but almost blind in the service of my 
country. " ' " This little address, " says an eye wit- 
ness, "with the mode of and manner of deliver- 
ing it, drew tears from many of the officers." 2 
But this little address was made to check a possible 
uprising in the army, the result of neglect by the 
civil authorities due to the lack of power in the 
central government. 

Often during the war, Washington had heard 
the soldiers gathered around the camp-fires 



1 It is interesting to note the prominence given to this in The 
Federalist. 

3 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. x., p. 170, note. 



106 Washington and Lincoln 

offer the toast, "Another hoop for the barrel or 
more cement for the Union. " l And had he been 
asked to respond to this toast, he would have said 
without a moment's hesitation, "Not another hoop 
for the barrel, but more cement for the Union." 
However, had he been pressed for a more definite 
answer, as to how much more cement was needed, 
he would have looked perplexed, and then in his 
simple and sincere manner have answered, "How 
much more I do not know. " 

And no one else knew. He and the others were, 
to borrow a most apt modern expression, in the 
"twilight zone." Where the power that gave 
local freedom to the States ended and the power 
that gave central authority to the Union began 
they did not know, even as one cannot tell in the 
twilight hour where day ends and night begins. 
Enough, that in the government as formed, suffi- 
cient power was lodged, as enumerated in Article 
II. section 8 of the Constitution to make actual a 
composite empire ; which James Wilson, borrowing 
the language of Montesquieu, described as an 
"assembling of distinct societies, which, consoli- 
dated into a new body, are capable of being in- 
creased by the addition of other members." 2 

1 Brooks, Life of Knox, p. 170. 

3 This description also used by Hamilton in Federalist No. 9. 
See, Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, book ix., section I. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 107 

That Washington believed such an empire had 
been formed, is evident from his attitude following 
the adoption of the Constitution. As the first 
President he made a visit to New England. When 
he reached Boston, John Hancock by a half dis- 
guised ruse allowed it to be known that he expected 
President Washington to call upon him first — thus 
suggesting the sovereignty of the State over the 
Union. But the recently elected President would 
have none of this. And so John Hancock, pros- 
perous beyond his fellow men, loaded with doc- 
trines of democracy, suffering with gout, and 
leaning on his cane, must knock at the President's 
door, enter and pay his respects. x A nation had 
come into real existence. This nation, had a 
President. And the President of at least the sum 
total of the parts, must take precedence over the 
Governor of one of the parts. Power at last had 
been lodged in the Union. 

Second, with the power thus lodged, how should 
it be expressed? The broad answer to this ques- 
tion was by law. To borrow an ancient expression 
much in vogue to-day, it was to be a govern- 
ment of laws not men. Article VI of the Consti- 
tution was adopted unanimously. It contains 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., pp. 444-446, notes. 
Also, Fisher Ames Works, vol. I., p. 14. 



108 Washington and Lincoln 

the central clause of the Constitution, which is 
the hinge on which the door of the composite 
government was hung, and on which it has swung 
ever since. It reads : 

This Constitution and the laws of the United 
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, 
and all treaties made or which shall be made, 
under the authority of the United States, shall 
be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in 
every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the 
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary 
notwithstanding. 

But what shall be enacted into law? And how 
shall the law as enacted become operative? The 
Constitutional group said the law shall be enacted 
in the spirit of compromise. That the Constitu- 
tion, which is the fundamental law of the land, 
was enacted as the result of compromise admits of 
no doubt. The two striking illustrations of this 
are in Article I Section 2 and 3, which provide for 
the composition of the Senate, and establishes 
representation on a three-fifths basis for slaves. 
It is useless to seek for any logical explanation of 
these provisions, for there is none. The Senate 
composed of representatives from the States, each 
State having equal representation, is contrary to 
the underlying conception of the government 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 109 

formed. 1 And the provision for representation 
which included slaves is impossible of rational 
defence. As James Wilson said while this ques- 
tion was under consideration: "Are they ad- 
mitted as citizens? Then why are they not ad- 
mitted on an equality with white citizens? Are 
they admitted as property? Then why is not 
other property admitted into the computation?" 2 
There was no answer. 

How then explain this inconsistency? The 
answer is, the task of the Constitutional group was 
not to make to order the best government, but out 
of the material at hand to make the best possible 
government. Franklin stated this in his quaint 
way when he said: "When a broad table is to be 
made, and the edges of the planks do not fit, the 
artist takes a little from both and makes a good 
joint. In like manner here both sides must part 
with some of their demands, in order that they 
may join in some accommodating proposition." 3 

'The theory of representation in the Senate, by which the 
States as distinct from the People are represented, does not 
harmonise with the doctrine of indivisibility of power, residing 
in the People, which later was enunciated, and still later accepted 
as the doctrine of the Nation. If the power is in the People, then 
the People should be represented on a proportional basis, in one 
branch as well as the other of Congress, even though the basis of 
representation in one branch be reduced. 

'Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. i., p. 339. * Ibid, p. 280. 



no Washington and Lincoln 

Here was the broad table of government to be 
made. In making it broad, many planks must be 
used. Some of these planks were small States and 
others large States. Some were Southern planks 
and others Northern planks. In making a broad 
table that would hold together the planks must 
fit. In order to make them fit, a little must be 
taken from each. And this was done. The small 
States conceded something to the large States in 
the proportional representation in the lower House. 
The large States conceded something to the small 
States in the equal representation by States in the 
upper House. The Southern States yielded some- 
thing to the Northern states in the proposed Navi- 
gation Act to be passed by Congress under the 
commerce clause in the Constitution. The North- 
ern States yielded something to the Southern 
States in the provision on slavery. And thus the 
broad table of government was made. 

Washington was in sympathy with this spirit 
of compromise. When the convention came 
to a close, he, as the retiring President, sent a 
letter to Congress in which he spoke of the diffi- 
culties which had confronted the delegates, of the 
necessity for a generous consideration for common 
interests, and of the Constitution as the result of a 
"spirit of amity, and of that mutual difference 



The Constitutional Group of 1 787 1 1 1 

and concession" 1 which the peculiarity of our 
political situation rendered indispensable. And 
perhaps Washington's position on this question of 
compromise is the surest test of the greatness of 
his nature. Emerging from a long military career, 
and having led the forces amid conditions in which 
compromise had no part, he now quietly takes the 
leadership, amid conditions in which compromise 
was an all-important part. 

The Constitutional group also said, the law as 
enacted in the spirit of compromise, shall be made 
operative by force. But force may be either 
moral or physical. In a government of laws, the 
force that is moral is more effective than that 
which is physical. The moisture that falls occa- 
sionally in the tumultuous thunder storm, is not 
so much as that which falls quietly in the dew on 
the many clear nights. And there is something 
magnificent in the conception of power in govern- 
ment as it mastered the minds of the Constitutional 
leaders, which, expressed in law, came down upon 
the people, gently, yet pervasively, as dew upon 
the grass, the symbol of which was the Court of 
Justice. 

But these men were practical leaders. Behind 
the Court of Justice, as the symbol of the moral 

1 The Federalist, Lodge Ed., p. 571. 



ii2 Washington and Lincoln 

dignity of the law, they placed coercion by physical 
force. As Hamilton said in one of the Federalist 
papers, "a government of force alone" (meaning 
moral force) "and without any coercive power 
would be good, but such a system has no place but 
in the reveries of those political doctors whose 
sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental 
science." 1 And Washington agreed with Hamil- 
ton for he said: "I confess, however, that my 
opinion of public virtue is so far changed, that I 
have my doubts, whether any system, without the 
means of coercion in the sovereign, will enforce 
due obedience to the ordinances of a general govern- 
ment; without which everything else fails. " 2 The 
question then as to the expression of power was 
answered by saying, through law as enacted in the 
spirit of compromise, and made operative by force, 
which usually was moral, and might be physical. 
Third, with the power thus lodged and expressed, 
from whence was it derived? The answer to this 
question is given in the preamble to the Constitu- 
tion which says: "We the people of the United 
States ... do ordain and establish this Constitu- 
tion for the United States." And this was literally 
true. The Constitution of 1787, was adopted 

1 Federalist, 28. 

' Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 133. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 113 

by the people, in conventions, composed of repre- 
sentatives chosen by the people, for the purpose 
of considering the same. 

But this question of the derivation of power 
cannot be answered merely by quoting the words 
in its preamble, and calling attention to the method 
of its adoption, or even by going further, and point- 
ing out the provisions in the instrument for its 
amendment by the people. This is the orthodox 
argument in support of the assertion that the 
Constitution gives us a government with power 
derived from the people. Or to use an expression 
found in national political platforms, the Constitu- 
tion is the form, of which the Declaration of 
Independence is the spirit. However, there is a 
disposition on the part of many students of govern- 
ment to-day, to question the accuracy of this 
argument. They are, as it were, the "Higher 
Critics" of governmental theory in American his- 
tory. And the argument is a strong one, and runs 
something like this: 

The reason for changing the government from 
one of the States as in the Confederation, to one of 
the people in the States, as in the Constitution, was 
not that thereby the people might have more in- 
fluence in the government, but that a stronger cen- 
tral government might be formed. It was power 

8 



ii4 Washington and Lincoln 

at the centre that was in the minds of the framers. 
And those who opposed the Constitution so under- 
stood it, as seen in Patrick Henry's words in the 
Virginia convention when having Washington in 
mind he said: "I have the highest veneration for 
those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, 
what right had they to say, We, the People? My 
political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solici- 
tude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who 
authorised them to speak the language of We, the 
People, instead of, We the States?" 1 

In support of the argument, attention is 
called to the fact that many of the great leaders 
of the democratic movement were absent from 
this convention. In addition to Patrick Henry, 
who bitterly opposed the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion, it is known that Sam Adams gave to it but 
luke-warm support, and finally voted in the Massa- 
chusetts convention for its adoption as the lesser 
of two evils. And Jefferson, who was in France 
at this time, was indulging in political theories the 
opposite of those written into this document. 2 
When the influence of these men in the Revolution- 
ary period is remembered, it is safe to assume that, 

1 Elliott's Debates, vol. iii, p. 22. 

a "I hold thai a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, 
and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. " 
Writings of Jefferson, Ford Ed., vol. iv., p. 362. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 115 

had they been members of the Constitutional 
convention, they would have given to it a more 
democratic flavour. 

Another argument is found in the language used 
in the debates of the convention by those who 
framed the Constitution. A different political 
vocabulary from that of the Revolutionary era is 
used. As the debates during the long summer of 
1787, are read to-day, the distinct impression is 
made upon the mind, that the majority of the 
delegates were not interested primarily in a pro- 
gressive government of the people, but rather, in a 
stable government by the use of the people. Much 
is said about safeguarding property and the ex- 
cesses of democracy. Sprinkled over the pages of 
Madison's Journal, are such expressions as these: 
"He — had been taught by experience the danger 
of the levelling spirit. " "The people should have 
as little to do as may be about government." 
"The Senate should be as strong a likeness to the 
British House of Lords as possible. " "He was of 
the opinion — that the British government was the 
best in the world." "A government which was 
instituted principally for the protection of property 
and was itself to be supported by property. " 

This argument, based upon the attitude of the 
members as revealed in the debates during the 



u6 Washington and Lincoln 

convention, is strengthened by the position taken 
by individual members following the convention. 
This is illustrated in two ways. The usual illus- 
tration is in the papers written by Hamilton, 
Madison, and Jay in The Federalist, in the weeks 
following adjournment. These papers have been 
highly praised. The most superlative praise is 
that given by Marshall. There is, however, a 
tendency to make too much of these papers as a 
revelation of the minds of those who wrote the 
Constitution. Many of the misconceptions regard- 
ing the original meaning of the Constitution, are 
due to a study of The Federalist rather than to the 
debates of the convention. That these masterful 
papers profoundly influenced the interpretation of 
the Constitution in the early period of formation 
admits of no doubt. In the decision of the Supreme 
Court handed down in Cohens vs. Virginia, The 
Federalist is referred to in the following language: 
11 It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, 
and is appealed to by all parties in the questions 
to which that instrument has given birth." 1 
This is high praise, coming as it does, from the 
greatest jurist of our history. Yet it is well to 
remember when these words are quoted, that they 
were spoken before any authentic record of the 

1 6 Wheaton, p. 264. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 117 

debates in the convention were published. A 
comparison of The Federalist with Madison's Jour- 
nal, shows clearly that the former does not fully 
uncover the minds of those who wrote the Con- 
stitution. And this might be expected, for these 
papers were not given to the world to make clear 
what their authors thought the Constitution 
meant at the time they voted for it, but to show 
what it might mean to those who differed from 
them, and who might be persuaded to agree with 
them as to the wisdom of adopting it. Yet with 
this understanding of the papers, it is seen that 
they represent a distinct change from the Revolu- 
tionary period. 

The other illustration is John Adams, selected 
by the Constitutional group as the first Vice-Presi- 
dent of the new government. 1 During his resi- 
dence in England, Adams shifted from his earlier 
position in favour of a modified democracy, to a 
position in favour of an extreme aristocracy. This 
change was known to the leaders in the convention, 
who doubtless during the debates, read his work 
entitled, A Defence of the Constitutions of Govern- 

1 Merriam, American Political Theory, pp. 122-141. The 
chapter in this work, entitled "The Reactionary Movement," 
would be stronger as an argument, were more attention given to 
the debates in the convention, and to the Constitution itself, 
and less relatively to Adams and The Federalist. 



n8 Washington and Lincoln 

ments of the United States, which was written in 
reply to the French statesman, Turgot, and pub- 
lished in 1787. And knowing of these views, and 
at the same time desirous of selecting a man in 
sympathy with the Constitution as they understood 
it, they turned to John Adams. 

But the strongest argument is that of the 
Constitution itself. The words, "We the people 
of the United States, " are but as the words of the 
title to a book. And as sometimes the title is 
ambiguous, so with these words. The method by 
which the Constitution was adopted might be 
democratic, but the Constitution, as adopted was 
not. The reader may start with the preamble, 
but by the time he has finished reading the seven 
Articles of the Constitution, the simple democratic 
charm of the words, "We the people" is gone. 
The reason for this is, that in the Constitution a 
government is formed according to the theory of 
checks and balances. And as the reader seeks a 
reason for this, he can find but one, namely, as a 
restraint upon the popular will. ' 

In the State governments at this time, there was 
provision for the executive, legislative, and judi- 

1 What Merriam's chapter lacks is supplied by J. Allan Smith's, 
The Spirit of American Government — a disturbing, thought-provok- 
ing, able little book, that must be reckoned with. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 119 

cial departments. But in the actual working of 
these governments, the emphasis was placed upon 
the legislative, that is, upon that part of the gov- 
ernment most responsive to the will of the people. 
As Madison said, referring to the State govern- 
ments: "Experience has proved a tendency in our 
government to throw all power into the legislative 
vortex. " * In the government formed by the Con- 
stitution, the least emphasis is placed upon the 
legislative, and the most upon the judicial. That 
is, the most emphasis is placed upon that part of 
the government furthest removed from the people. 
Further, in order to make clear the distrust 
of the people, when dividing the legislative into 
two branches, the upper branch, namely the Senate 
which is much less representative than the House, 
is given more power, as seen in the treaty-making 
and judicial appointing functions. Is it any won- 
der then, that Richard Henry Lee in studying the 
draft of the Constitution, as it came from the 
convention said: "The only check to be found in 
favour of the democratic principle in this system 
is in the House of Representatives, which I believe, 
may justly be called a mere shred or rag of repre- 
sentation. " 2 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. i., p. 382. 
1 Elliott's Debates, vol. i., p. 503. 



120 Washington and Lincoln 

But what was Washington's position at this 
time? Did he have as much confidence in the 
capacity of the people for government as he had in 
1776, when he commended the "sound doctrine" 
of Tom Paine's pamphlet, entitled Common Sense? 
At no time during his long career, is his silence 
more aggravating than during the weeks of the 
convention. It would be interesting to know 
what thoughts wandered through his mind, as he 
presided over the deliberations, and listened to 
the statements of Gouverneur Morris, Elbridge 
Gerry, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, John 
Dickinson, and the Pinckneys, as they denounced 
democracy, insisted upon property as the chief 
concern of society, or pronounced encomiums upon 
the British House of Lords. Only once during 
the convention did he express himself on a question 
of government, and then to recommend increasing 
the representation in the lower House, by decreas- 
ing the basis from forty to thirty thousand. 1 A 
momentary gleam of democracy, but only a gleam. 

His real attitude is probably revealed in the 
fact, that after the close of the convention, having 
signed the Constitution, he returned to Virginia 
and did what he could for its adoption. And 
Alexander Donald writing to Jefferson late in 1787 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. ii., p. 397. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 121 

says : " I stayed two days with General Washington 
at Mt. Vernon ... I never saw him as keen for 
anything in my life as he is for the adoption of the 
new scheme of government. " l 

The answer to the question, as to the derivation 
of power, is then in "We, the people. " But these 
words, should be interpreted in the light of a con- 
servative reaction from the democracy of the 
Revolutionary period. Washington believed that 
the nation was like the traveller on the strange 
road, who coming to a fork, takes the wrong road 
and discovering his mistake, retraces his steps 
until he reaches the right road, along which he 
travels until his destination is reached. 

Fourth, under a government thus formed, with 
power lodged at the centre, expressed through 
law, and derived in a modified sense from the 
people, what was the danger of abuse, if any? The 
answer of the Constitutional leaders was, slavery. 
The large amount of space in the records of the 
debates, together with the character of the dis- 
cussions makes this clear. 

Slavery did not come before the convention as a 
new subject, the result of changed conditions. It 
came as an old question, which now had assumed 
such proportions, that it could not be kept out of 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 142. 



122 Washington and Lincoln 

the convention. In 1776, when Jefferson presented 
the original draft of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, there was a clause which denounced slavery, 
and placed the responsibility for its existence upon 
King George. In the final draft as adopted by the 
Congress, all mention of slavery was omitted. 
Jefferson explains this by saying in his notes on the 
debate, that the clause "was struck out in com- 
plaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, which 
had never attempted to restrain the importation of 
slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to 
continue it." Then he adds, "Our Northern 
brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under 
those censures: for though their people have very 
few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty 
considerable carriers of them to others." 1 And 
so slavery received no attention in the Declaration 
of Independence. 

In the same year, when John Dickinson pre- 
sented the original draft of the Articles of Confed- 
eration, the eleventh article placed taxation for 
the purposes of the general government upon the 
basis of population. This raised the question 
whether slaves were human beings, or property, 
such as sheep, which called forth the significant 
remark of Franklin during the debate, "that 

^Journals of Congress, vol. vi., p. 1693. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 123 

slaves rather weaken than strengthen the States, 
and there is therefore some difference between 
them and sheep ; sheep will never make any insur- 
rections. " ' But in the Articles of Confederation 
as finally adopted in 1781, the basis of taxation 
was shifted from population to land, and so again 
the question failed to receive formal attention. 2 

However, in 1787, the Constitutional group 
returned to the theory of John Dickinson in the 
original draft of the Articles, and based taxation 
upon population. This again raised the question 
of slavery, and as has been mentioned elsewhere, 
resulted in a compromise by which in the enumera- 
tion, slaves were to be counted on a three-fifths 
basis. Thus slavery at last received formal atten- 
tion in one of the greatest, if not the greatest 
document of the 'American nation. It came into 
government by the side door as it were, in con- 
nection with the question of taxation and repre- 
sentation. Slaves were thus three-fifths human. 
However, it also came in by the front door of 
government, in Article ix, Section 9 of the Con- 
stitution, which forbade the prohibition of the 
importation of slaves before the year 1808, and 

1 Journals of Congress, vol. vi., p. 1080. 

'Article xi. in the original draft is changed to Article viii. in 
final draft. Compare vol. v., p. 548 of Journals of Congress with 
vol. ix., p. 913. 



124 Washington and Lincoln 

authorised a tax of ten dollars on each one 
imported. And thus slaves were property. 

Of course here was a situation which the Consti- 
tutional leaders did not understand. They be- 
lieved that progress in government was possible 
only through compromise, but they did not realise 
the tremendous price which would be paid for this 
progress. 

There was some sentiment against slavery on 
moral grounds. Gouverneur Morris said: "He 
would never concur in upholding domestic slavery. 
It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of 
heaven on the States where it prevailed." 1 But 
this statement of the young enthusiast, was very 
much weakened by the suggestion he made to the 
effect, that he "wished the whole subject to be 
committed, including the clauses relating to taxes 
on exports, and to a navigation act. These things 
may form a bargain among the Northern and 
Southern States." 2 And there was sentiment 
against the prevailing view that slaves were prop- 
erty. Roger Sherman opposed the clause author- 
ising the laying of a tax on slaves imported, 
"because," as he said, "it implied that they were 
property." 3 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. ii., p. 112. 

* Ibid, p. 224. 3 Ibid, p. 224. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 125 

It is impossible to determine the exact position 
of the members on this question. Some who were 
personally opposed to slavery, objected to a Con- 
stitutional provision, claiming that it was a ques- 
tion for the States, not for the nation to decide. 
Some were influenced in favour of a clause prohib- 
iting further importation of slaves, because of the 
conditions of their States. Maryland and Vir- 
ginia at this time were overstocked with slaves. 
All were probably in agreement that slavery would 
finally disappear if time was allowed to do its work. 
Even Charles Pinckney from the far Southern 
State of South Carolina expressed this view, for he 
argued that, " If the States be all left at liberty on 
this subject, South Carolina may perhaps by 
degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia 
and Maryland already have done. " 1 

Especially is it difficult to determine the 
exact position of Washington on this question. 
It is a fact, that he approved this Constitution, 
which gave a negative recognition of slavery, in 
its clause for a three-fifths representation for a 
slave ; the owner, not the slave, securing the politi- 
cal advantage of such vote; and an affirmative 
recognition of slavery, in extending by twenty 
years the period of importation and authorising a 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. ii., p. 219. 



126 Washington and Lincoln 

tax upon the slave as property. It is also a fact 
that Washington was himself an owner of slaves. 

But over against these facts are two others. 
One is, that when the resolution was presented in 
favour of extending the time of importation, the 
Virginia delegation of which Washington was a 
member and with which, (even though presiding 
officer) he voted, cast its unanimous vote against 
the resolution. 1 Madison said at the time: 
"Twenty years will produce all the mischief 
that can be apprehended from the liberty to 
import slaves. So long a term will be more dis- 
honourable to the national character than to say 
nothing about it in the Constitution." 2 

The other fact is, that Washington is on record 
against slavery as an institution. He said : " I hope 
it will not be conceived from these observations 
that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who 
are the subject of this letter in slavery. I can only 
say, that there is not a man living, who wishes more 
sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the 
abolition of it; but there is only one proper and 
effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, 
and that is by legislative authority ; and this as far 
as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting. " 3 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. ii., p. 251. 2 Ibid, p. 250. 
^Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 25. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 127 

It is impossible to harmonise Washington's 
views on slavery, with his personal action in keep- 
ing slaves. But in this Washington reflected the 
sentiment of his era. Roger Sherman objected to 
the thought of the slave as property, but he voted 
for the taxing clause in the Constitution that 
treated them as property. Thomas Jefferson was 
sure that "all men are created free and equal," 
but he held slaves on his plantation. Patrick 
Henry was extreme in his denunciation, but his 
black servants were too valuable an asset to be 
dispensed with. 

The truth seems to be, that Washington and the 
others reached their conclusions on slavery under 
the influence of general philosophical theories, 
rather than with intense and practical moral con- 
victions. He knew that slavery was an abuse of 
power in government. But this abuse after all, 
was like a black cloud in the distance on a sum- 
mer's night, which rumbles, and flashes light, but 
being in the distance, its rains do not drench 
or its lightenings strike. Later, the cloud came 
nearer. 

Such were the answers given by the Constitu- 
tional group, with Washington as its commanding 
personality, to the question of power in govern- 
ment. In stating the answers, the aim has been 



128 Washington and Lincoln 

to do so with caution and reserve, implying 
thereby that the answers were not given in 1787, 
with dogmatic certainty, but as hopeful, yet tenta- 
tive affirmations, which for verification awaited 
the verdict of time. 

There is a bit of gossip which has come down, 
and which illustrates the mental attitude of the 
men who framed the government. The great 
leader has been elected President. March 4, 1 789, 
is the day appointed for the First Congress to meet. 
On this day, only a handful of men are gathered. 
Not until April 5th do enough members assemble 
to constitute a quorum and organise both branches. 
The President elect away in his Southern home 
becomes uneasy. What does this mean? Is the 
slowness of assembling due to a lack of interest in 
the new government? Is the formulated plan a 
failure before it is tried? At last word reaches 
him that April 30th has been set as the day for the 
inauguration. He starts north and on the ap- 
pointed day draws near to New York. Congress 
is in session in the recently completed City Hall 
at the corner of Nassau and Wall streets. The 
booming of the cannon announces that the General 
has crossed the North River from New Jersey and 
will soon reach the hall. The question arises, 
How shall the President elect be received? Shall 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 129 

it be standing or sitting? John Adams is much 
excited. "Gentlemen," he said with a nervous 
air, "I wish for the directions of the Senate. The 
President will, I suppose, address the Congress. 
How shall I behave? How shall I receive it? 
Shall it be standing or sitting?" A member calls 
attention to the fact that in the English Parlia- 
ment the members stand when the King enters. 
Another member takes exception to this, saying, 
that as they had thrown off the yoke of monarchy, 
all its customs should be abandoned. While they 
are discussing the question, the door opens ; Wash- 
ington enters, walks down the aisle, bowing to the 
right and left, and reaching the platform takes his 
seat. * 

Only a bit of gossip suggestive of the condi- 
tions of the nation. A stronger government had 
been formed. How would the people behave? 
How would they receive it? Would it be standing 
or sitting? Washington himself did not know, for 
on the day the convention closed he wrote Lafay- 
ette and said: "It is the result of four months' 
deliberation. It is now a child of fortune to be 
fostered by some and buffeted by others. What 
will be the general opinion or reception of it is not 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 380, note. 
Also, Bassett, The Federalist System, pp. 7-12. 



130 Washington and Lincoln 

for me to decide, nor shall I say anything for or 
against it. If it be good, I suppose it will work 
its way; if bad, it will recoil on its framers. " x 

And so, to bring the study of this period to a 
close, it may be said that the key-word is formula- 
tion, even as the key- word in the Revolutionary 
period was protestation. The task of this era is, 
how to formulate a theory of power in govern- 
ment, that will be an improvement upon the one 
against which they had protested, and which at 
the same time will make permanent that which 
they gained as the result of the protest. The 
group of 1787 performs this task in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States ; which creates a compos- 
ite empire, republican in form; with a distribu- 
tion of power lodged in the parts, and at the 
centre, derived from the people, and expressed 
by law. 

" I was present in the pew with the President, and 
must assure you that after making all deductions for 
the delusion of one's fancy in regard to characters, I 
still think of him with more veneration than any 
other person. Time has made havoc upon his face. 
That, and many other circumstances not to be reas- 
oned about, conspire to keep up the awe I brought 
with me. He addressed the two Houses in the 
Senate Chamber; it was a very touching scene and 

Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 153, note. 



The Constitutional Group of 1787 131 

quite of the solemn kind. His aspect grave, almost 
to sadness; his modesty actually shaking; his voice 
deep, a little tremulous, and so low as to call for deep 
attention ; added to a series of objects presented to 
the mind, and overwhelming it, produced emotions 
of the most affecting kind upon the members. I, 
Pelgarlic, sat entranced. It seemed to me an allegory 
in which Virtue was personified, and addressing those 
whom she would make her votaries. Her power over 
the heart was never greater, and the illustration of 
her doctrine by her own example was never more 
perfect." — May 3, 1789. Fisher Ames, Works, vol. 
i., P- 34- 



The National Group of 1830 ' 

Forty and more years have passed since the 
members of the convention signed their names to 
the Constitution, "in order to form a more perfect 
Union." From the loins of the nation a new 
brood has come forth, which in the maturity of its 
powers, has the task of defining a more complex 
Union. In this brood are such men as Andrew 
Jackson, the hero of New Orleans; John Quincy 
Adams, the old man eloquent; Thomas H. Benton, 
the statesman of the frontier; Martin Van Buren, 
the little magician of strategy ; John Randolph, the 
political cartoonist, who used words instead of 
crayons; Henry Clay, the Prince Harry of the 
West; Daniel Webster, a small cathedral in him- 
self; Robert Y. Hayne, a strong thinker and 
debator, but overshadowed by a stronger; and 

* The year 1830 is arbitrarily selected as a matter of con- 
venience. There is no single event such as the Treaty of Paris 
in 1763, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Constitu- 
tion in 1787, or the Inauguration of Lincoln in 1861, which 
serves as a pivot upon which swing the events of the era. 1831 
might as well have been selected. 

132 



The National Group of 1830 133 

John C. Calhoun, in the grip of a great but mis- 
taken idea. 

The personnel of this group is unlike that of 
1787, in that it has no member of unchallenged 
leadership. There are great leaders in this group, 
who compare favourably in mental equipment 
with Hamilton, King, Wilson, and Madison of the 
earlier group. x But there is no Washington here. 
It is impossible to think of the leaders of 1830 
coming together, selecting one of their number, 
and turning to him as did the leaders in 1787, 
when they turned to the great Virginian, and 
recognised in him the commanding personality of 
the era. 

Again, the composition of this group, in its 
representative character, is more varied than that 
of the earlier period. Then the leaders looked 
with distrust upon the newer sections of the coun- 
try. They were quite sure that the welfare of the 
nation depended upon the superior intelligence of 
the older portions. Said one of the convention: 
"Among other objections it must be apparent they 
would not be able" (referring to the West) "to 

1 With such leaders at his elbow it is difficult to understand 
how De Tocqueville could jot down in his note book: "The race 
of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkably 
in the course of the last fifty years." — Democracy in America, 
Bigelow Ed., vol. i., p. 209. 



134 Washington and Lincoln 

furnish men, equally enlightened, to share in the 
administration of our common interests. Ml The 
man who made this remark, with the apparent 
approval of the others, would have been sur- 
prised, had he been living in 1830, to see in the 
White House, a leader from the wild frontier of 
Tennessee, and as the acknowledged leader of 
Congress, a statesman from the land made roman- 
tic by the exploits of Boone. The political centre 
of gravity was shifting. 

Another change is noted, as the work of this 
group is studied. There is no single document in 
which the thought of the era culminates, as does 
the thought of the Revolutionary era in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, and that of the Constitu- 
tional era in the Constitution. The mistake must 
however, not be made of assuming that the era is 
commonplace. At first blush, this would seem to 
be the fact. A period in which no leader towers 
above the others, and the consensus of thought 
does not finally result in some unique State Paper, 
is usually considered ordinary. 

But the student will not so interpret these 
years. And the reason for this is, that the condi- 
tions of 1830, are so unlike those of 1787, that the 
task of relating the government to these conditions, 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. i., p. 335. 



The National Group of 1830 135 

gives to the era a deep meaning. Tendencies have 
been at work since the Constitutional convention 
adjourned, which in the passing of the years, form 
a new nation. And the question is, Can the nation 
as formed in one era under certain conditions, be 
defined in this era, under changed conditions? 1 

In order to understand this task of defining a 
more complex Union, let us consider some of the 
changed conditions which make the Union more 
complex. First, there is the change due to terri- 
torial expansion, carrying with it increase in 
population. By the purchase of Louisiana in 
1803, the seizure of West Florida in 18 10, and the 
acquisition of East Florida in 18 19, the area has 
increased from 820,377 square miles to 1,754,622 
square miles. The population has grown from 
3,929,625 in 1790, to 12,866,020 in 1830. 3 

This doubling of the area, and more than 
trebling of the population, raises the question, 
whether a government based upon a Constitution 
written a generation before possesses enough 
strength to reach forth over this expanding area 
and hold it together. 

1 The writer has omitted the events of the War of 1812, and 
those of the years immediately following, which constitute what 
Shouler calls the "Era of Good Feeling;" because they do not 
concern the thesis of this study. 

2 " A Century of Population growth," U. S. Census, pp. 54, 55. 



136 Washington and Lincoln 

Some, taking counsel of their fears, are quoting 
the words of Montesquieu, that "It is natural for 
a Republic to have only a small territory; other- 
wise it cannot long subsist. " x 

Others are reading Hamilton's and Madison's 
arguments in The Federalist, in which they assert 
that the peculiar merit of the republican as distinct 
from the democratic form of government is, that 
it is adapted to large areas and great populations. 2 

Doubtless, the French historian would have 
been less cautious, had he foreseen the composite 
empire, republican in form, which came into 
existence in 1787. And probably the daring im- 
perialists would have been more cautious, had they 
seen the vast area and population of 1830, with 
the fabled god Terminus on the top of the Rockies, 
and looking westward to the Pacific. Here indeed 
is a reminder of the question of empire in 1763, and 
of the protest made in 1776 against the answer 
given. How shall imperial control be extended 
over a vastly increased domain, and according to 
the system outlined in the Constitution? 

While the people are taking counsel of their 
fears, because of the vast territorial expansion and 

1 Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, Book viii, section 16. 

2 Federalist, No. g and No. 10, Hamilton in No. g quotes Mon- 
tesquieu. 



The National Group of 1830 137 

increase in population, another change comes as 
the result of the application of steam as motive 
power. The leaders of the nation saw at an early 
date that a composite empire was conditioned upon 
physical cohesion as well as upon similarity in 
government through federal enactment. A national 
domain might be created, and from this domain 
States might be formed, but the distance that 
separated this domain from the Sea-Board States 
and accentuated the intervening mountain ranges, 
was great. And so as the population moved into 
the West and South-west the agitation began for 
roads and canals. The most ambitious under- 
taking of this sort on the part of the Federal govern- 
ment was the Cumberland Road, and on the part 
of a State government, the Erie Canal. 

No sooner, however, was this work well under 
way in the nation and States than steam as a motive 
power is recognised and applied. It first appears 
in the steam-boat that plies the river and lake, and 
later in the iron horse that rumbles down the 
metal roadway. * It is next to impossible to over- 
estimate the influence of this great discovery upon 

1 These railroads followed instead of crossed the lines of lati- 
tude. The notable exception to this was the Illinois Central 
Railroad, which became a political issue in the decade beginning 
with 1840. The significance of this in the later sectional struggle 
is apparent. 



138 Washington and Lincoln 

national life. The material prosperity of the 
people is enhanced, for by the use of steam the 
produce and products of distant markets are 
moved freely. In a sense, perhaps not intended 
by the prophets, "the wilderness begins to blos- 
som as a rose, " under its magic touch. The pro- 
vincialism which threatens the people in different 
portions of the land, is modified by the easier 
interchange of the products of the farm, the com- 
modities of the city, and the encouragement 
offered to travel. The Constitution is made to take 
on a larger meaning, as the possibilities of the 
"commerce clause" are discovered by a Court, 
which in these years makes as well as interprets 
law. x The famous example of this is the decision 
in Ogden vs. Gibbon, called forth by the steam 
navigation of the Hudson River. 

But more important than all these results, or 
rather working through these results, a national 
unity is made real and effective. For the path- 
ways ploughed in the waters by steam -boats, and 
the trackways made of rails along which steam- 
trains moved on land, are to the nation in its parts, 
as the nervous system is to the parts of the human 
body. It is no idle phrase that is used when, it is 

1 There is an interesting discussion of this question of power in 
government as drawn forth by the fact of steam as a motive 
power, in Goodnow's, Social Reform and the Constitution, chap. ii. 



The National Group of 1830 139 

said, that freedom through a national government 
was conditioned upon the advent of steam, har- 
nessed to move passengers and freight. And 
there is a glorious symbolism in the fact, that the 
corner-stone of the first railway uniting the East 
with the West was laid by Charles Carroll, the 
venerable signer of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. * 

Splendid as is the reasoning of Hamilton, in The 
Federalist, in favour of a republican form of govern- 
ment as best adapted to vast areas and large 
populations, it is not strong enough to convince the 
modern mind that this nation could have held 
together and grown in national consciousness, 
apart from the introduction of a mechanical force 
which he did not and could not appreciate. Inter- 
state citizenship now found expression in inter- 
state commerce, as made possible by steam as 
a motive power. 

Another change to be noted in the period under 
review was primarily sectional. At this time, 
King Cotton was waving his golden sceptre, and 
States in a section of the Union were yielding to 
his sway. Washington, as he presided over the 
debates of the Constitutional convention, and 
announced the votes on slave importation and 

burner, Rise of the New West, p. 292. 



140 Washington and Lincoln 

representation, quieted his conscience with the 
thought that time, regardless of man's legislation, 
was on the side of the slave. But in this he was 
mistaken. For now after the lapse of a generation, 
slavery seems forever established in the Union. 
There are few years more tragic and confusing 
than those in the last quarter of the 18th century. 
A poet somewhere has a line to the effect, "That 
truth if loosed will hurl the world's course 
right. " Against this splendid line another might 
be placed which would read, "The forces of man 
if loosed will hurl the world's course wrong. " 

If the ear of man could have caught all the 
sounds on the 17th of September, 1787, it would 
have heard the scratching of quills on paper in the 
convention hall at Philadelphia for the making of 
a "more perfect Union" and the sound of ham- 
mers in machine shops in England for the making 
of a less perfect Union. For Arkwright, Har- 
greaves, and Cartwright, in perfecting the loom, 
spinning-jenny, and factory system, unconsciously 
hit the Union a staggering blow. 

By these inventions, the capacity of the mills 
for cotton enormously increased. Suddenly, these 
mills loomed big on the shore of the Old World 
and, as a hungry giant, called for more food. And 
the growers of long staple cotton on the tide water 



The National Group of 1830 141 

plantations of the New World, could give this 
industrial giant but a few crumbs. 

But, as if there was a mysterious conspiracy on 
the part of the forces of man, the Yankee school- 
teacher, Eli Whitney, in 1793, by his invention of 
the cotton-gin, made it possible to feed the giant 
loaves instead of crumbs. For by this device it 
became profitable to raise the short staple cotton 
on the higher lands inland. 

The effect of this in changing the entire situation 
was soon perceptible. Slavery assumed propor- 
tions hitherto undreamed of. The annual yield of 
cotton increased from two million pounds in 1791, 
to four hundred and fifty-seven million pounds in 
1834. * And with this enormous increase there 
went a vast expansion of acreage, and a corres- 
ponding increase in the value of slaves. 

This economic development vitally affected the 
moral aspect of slavery. The honest, but com- 
placent, theory of elimination by time gave way to 
the rather casuistical theory of mitigation by 
scattering. Men were not ready to defend slavery 
on biblical grounds; that was to come later, but 
they were quite sure that the evil could be lessened 
by spreading it out over the nation. As one of the 
leaders in the debate on the Missouri Compromise 

1 Turner, Rise of the New West, p. 47. 



142 Washington and Lincoln 

in 1820 said: "Will you let the lightnings of its 
wrath (referring to slavery) break upon the South, 
when by the wise interposition of a system of 
legislation you may reduce it to a summer's 
cloud." 1 Here, through economic development, 
was the old question of the parts in a section of the 
empire, gradually drawing together through a 
common interest, to contend against imperial 
control over the whole empire. 

Still another change was due to the growth of 
democracy. This change while not appreciated at 
its full significance, was really the opposite of the 
sectional change, and in the future would prove to 
be the determining factor in asserting the powers 
of the empire over a section of it. For the sec- 
tional change while due to economic causes, was in 
spirit an aristocratic movement. Curiously, at 
the very time this sectional change was taking 
place, the influence of the "well-born" in govern- 
ment was diminishing, and the influence of the 
' ' filthy democrat ' ' was increasing . To paraphrase 
a witticism of the day, a self-conscious democracy 
was abroad in the land, that refused to wear a high 
hat, lest by so doing, it would wear a crown on its 
head and thus seem to squint at monarchy. 

It is not much, if any, exaggeration to say, that 

1 Annals of Congress, 16 Cong., 1 session, p. 1025. 



The National Group of 1830 143 

Washington believed in a republican form of gov- 
ernment based on the aristocracy of land. To be 
sure, the aristocracy of land prevailed in the Revo- 
lutionary period, but to make this more stable, the 
republican form was established in the Constitu- 
tional period. The clause in the Constitution, 
"We the people of the United States," as sug- 
gested in a previous chapter, meant that only 
those owning land had a voice in the government. 
The result was that in 1787, about one half of the 
adult male population of proper colour could vote. 
And to secure the stability of a national govern- 
ment based upon even this restricted democracy, 
it was planned as Madison said, that all popular 
appointments should be "refined by successive 
nitrations. " x Among the appointments which 
were to pass through such filtration was that of 
the President. He was to be chosen by electors, 
selected by the Legislatures of the States. But 
the conditions under which this election should 
take place were such, that probably the final 
choice would be made by the lower branch of 
Congress, where the members were to vote by 
delegations, each State having one vote. Surely 
this was filtration ! 

However, two things happened which theCon- 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed. vol. i., p. 42. 



144 Washington and Lincoln 

stitutional leaders did not anticipate. One was 
the rise of political parties, and the other was the 
extension of the franchise. The rise of political 
parties necessitated the Xllth Amendment to the 
Constitution. And by successive stages, the selec- 
tion and election of the President passed into the 
direct control of the people. And to further 
emphasise this democratic tendency, the States 
during this period removed many of the limitations 
on the franchise, and about the time the national 
political conventions came into existence, that is, 
in 1830, manhood suffrage was general. James 
Wilson in one of the debates on the Constitution 
said : " He was for raising the Federal pyramid to a 
considerable altitude, and therefore wanted the 
base as broad as possible. " ' Profoundly demo- 
cratic as the great Scotsman was, he probably 
would have rubbed his eyes with wonder, had he 
seen within almost a generation, the base of the 
pyramid thus enlarged. Here was an advanced 
conception of political freedom, gaining the ascend- 
ency in the nation as a whole ; which was destined 
to work for the unification of the empire, even as 
in earlier days it had worked for the dismember- 
ment of the old empire. 
These are the four changes which give to the 

'Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. i., p. 41. 



The National Group of 1830 145 

year 1830 its profound significance; changes which 
Washington and others of his day did not and could 
not foresee. But along with these changes, and 
working through them, were two tendencies which 
came down as a legacy from the past. The one 
was the centrifugal tendency, that is, the throwing 
out of power from the whole at the centre to the 
parts on the circumference. The other was the 
centripetal tendency, that is, the drawing in of 
power from the parts on the circumference to the 
whole at the centre. 

During the Revolutionary period, the centri- 
fugal tendency was the stronger. In the Constitu- 
tional era, the centripetal tendency gained enough 
of an ascendency, to insure the adoption of the 
Constitution, although the ascendency was slight, 
as seen in the struggle of the State conventions. 
A typical illustration of this is found in the expe- 
rience of Alexander Hamilton in the New York 
convention which met at Poughkeepsie. A friend 
inquired of him one day what the chances of 
adoption were. He answered, "God only knows. 
Several votes have been taken, by which it appears 
that there are two to one against us. " And then 
he added, "The convention shall never rise until 
the Constitution is adopted." 1 And what Hamil- 

1 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. C. Hamilton, vol. iii., p. 522. 



i4<> Washington and Lincoln 

ton met with in New York, ami Rufus King in 

Massachusetts, James Madison also found in 
Virginia. 

it was, however, apparently tin- belief of Wash- 
ington, that as soon as the Constitution with its 
ten Amendments should be adopted, this contro- 
versy WOUld Cease, but in this he was mistaken. 

The new government had scarcely boon formed, 
when the controversy broke out afresh, ami con- 
tinued with unabated force through the years, to 
reach an acute stage in the National era. 

As this struggle between the two opposing 
tendencies is traced, it is interesting to notice the 
line of demarcation. The dominant word in the 
centrifugal tendency is "compact." The domi- 
nant word in the centripetal tendency is "Union. " 
The emphasis in one is upon the States forming 

the Union. The emphasis in the other IS upon the 

Union as formed by the Slates. Each tendency 
insists upon its loyalty to the Constitution. But 

in proving this loyalty, those who see the States, 

quote more often the Xth Amendment which 

says: "The powers not delegated to the United 

States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it 
to the States, are reserved to the States respec- 
tively Or to the people." Those who see the 

Union of the States quote more often the last 



The National Group of 1830 147 

clause of Section 8, Article I, which reads: "To 
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper 
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, 
and all other powers vested by this Constitution 
in the government of the United States or any 
department or officer thereof. " 

In using thus the words of the Constitution, 
those favouring the centrifugal tendency, insist 
that in the grant of power, all power not granted 
was withheld. Those favouring the centripetal 
tendency, insist that all power not withheld, 
(although they might hesitate to state it,) was 
granted. But behind these theories of govern- 
ment was the question, as to where the final 
interpretation of the instrument of government 
rested. The men who emphasised the compact 
theory, declared that it rested with the States. 
The men who emphasised the Union, declared that 
it rested with the Supreme Court. 

If the two tendencies were old, reaching back 
into the Revolutionary era, this question of final 
authority was of necessity new. For some reason 
not made clear in the debates of the convention 
the Constitution as adopted did not raise this 
question, although Hamilton, in The Federalist 
insisted that it belonged to the Supreme Court. ' 

■ Federalist, No. 78. 



148 Washington and Lincoln 

However, Hamilton's contention was not accepted 
by all. And so, as the history of the years between 
1787 and 1830 is read, it is noted that many States 
asserted the right to determine the meaning of the 
Constitution. 

The form which this assertion took varied. 
Sometimes it was a conflict between the sovereign 
State and the Federal Judiciary, as seen in the 
attitude of Georgia in the Chisholm case in 1792, 
Pennsylvania in the Olmstead case in 1809, and 
Ohio in the Bank case in 1820. Again it was a 
conflict between the State and Congress, as seen 
in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 
regarding the Alien and Sedition laws, and the 
Massachusetts and Connecticut resolutions of 1809 
against the Enforcement Act of the Embargo. 
Still again it was a conflict between the State and 
the National Executive as revealed in the Hartford 
Convention of 18 14, on the question of calling out 
the militia. 1 But whatever form the tendency 
took, it was always the parts forming the 
whole, as over against the whole as formed by 
the parts. And the parts acting severally, and 
therein was the weakness of the tendency, as- 
serted the right to pass upon the constitution- 

1 For the documentary statement of this contest, the reader is 
referred to, Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations. 



The National Group of 1830 149 

ality of the acts of the whole. This was the 
centrifugal tendency. 

But over and against this tendency must be 
placed the working out of the centripetal ten- 
dency, as seen pre-eminently in the career of one 
man. 1 

About the time Washington started from Mt. 
Vernon to become President, he left behind in his 
native State, a young man named John Marshall. 
After serving his country in the army, in the State 
Legislature, in Congress, and as Secretary of State, 
Marshall was elected by John Adams to be Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court. During the thirty- 
four years thereafter came a series of masterly 
decisions based upon a construction of the Consti- 
tution the purpose and effect of which was to 
accelerate the centripetal tendency in government. 

In 1803, in Marburg vs. Madison, Marshall 
declared that the Supreme Court had authority 
to declare null and void the Acts of Congress. 
Law-making was limited by the Constitution, and 
the Supreme Court was to interpret the Constitu- 
tion. In Martin vs. Hunters Lessee, in 1813, he 
declared the right of the Supreme Court to enforce 

1 It is interesting to notice, that Marshall became Chief Justice 
at about the time Jefferson became President. Almost the last 
official act of John Adams was the appointment of Marshall. It 
is a fine illustration of the Hegelian philosophy of history. 



150 Washington and Lincoln 

its decisions in the States, even though the State 
courts had rendered opposite decisions. The Su- 
preme Court in cases arising under the Constitu- 
tion was final in all States. In the Dartmouth 
Case in 1 81 8, he asserted the right of the Supreme 
Court to set aside State legislation that was con- 
trary to the Constitution. In 1 8 19, in McCulloch 
vs. Maryland, he declared the doctrine of implied 
powers as distinct from literal or strict construc- 
tion. In American Insurance Co. vs. Canter, in 
1828, he argued that the Federal government had 
the right to acquire territory either by treaty or 
conquest. 

As these decisions are studied, and the layman 
may study them, for they are addressed to the 
mind of man, not to the legal training of lawyers, 
the outstanding fact is that they enunciate a 
doctrine of government the opposite of that enun- 
ciated by such a man as Jefferson. Here is a 
pronounced consolidating tendency. Jefferson 
perceived this and feared it. In 1820, he wrote: 
"They are construing our Constitution from a 
co-ordination of a general and special government 
to a general and supreme one alone." 1 Again in 
1 82 1 , he wrote: "The great object of my fear is the 
Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity ever 

1 Wrilings of Jefferson, Ford Ed., vol. x., p. 170. 



The National Group of 1830 151 

acting with noiseless foot, and unalarming ad- 
vances, gaining ground step by step, and hold- 
ing what it gains, is ingulphing insidiously the 
special governments into the jaws of that which 
feeds them." 1 

The decisions of Marshall have stood the test of 
time, and are in a sense a part of the fundamental 
law of the land. But this was not so in 1830. 
Men not only questioned the correctness of these 
interpretations of the Constitution, but questioned 
also the right of the Supreme Court to make them. 
And it is this fact, that gives to the era of 1830 its 
profound significance. 2 The time had come to 
pause and define the government. It is said 
that as Gouverneur Morris was leaving the con- 
vention hall in 1787, a friend remarked, "that 
a good Constitution had been made." His 
reply was, "that depends upon how it is con- 
strued." 3 And this is precisely the situation in 
1830. Amid the vast changes in the nation, as 
seen in territorial expansion, sectional growth, 



1 Writings of Jefferson, Ford Ed., vol. x., p. 189. 

3 Webster writing to Clay, October 5, 1832, says: "Not only 
the tariff, but the Constitution itself, in its elemental and funda- 
mental provisions, will be assailed with talent, vigour, and union. 
Everything is debated as if nothing had ever been settled." 
Schurz, Henry Clay, vol. i., p. 348. 

3 Gordy, Political Parties in the United States, vol. i., p. 114. 



152 Washington and Lincoln 

and democratic consciousness, the question was 
how should the Constitution be construed. And 
in construing it, the question would be answered, 
whether it was a good Constitution. 

Having noted the changed conditions in the 
nation, and examined the two opposing tendencies 
struggling for mastery in government, the question 
now arises, what was the real problem that con- 
fronted the National group in 1830? There can 
be but one answer to this question, namely, the 
old problem of power in government. The same 
problem that confronted the Parliamentary group 
in 1763, the Revolutionary group in 1776, and the 
Constitutional group in 1787. And as the problem 
came to the front in the preceding eras, because 
of vast change, so it reappeared in 1830. 

There is an interesting experience related in 
connection with the famous Lewis and Clark 
expedition, which began in the spring of 1804, and 
ended in the autumn of 1806. After journeying 
for months up-stream in a batteau and two 
pirogues, the men, forty-five in number, came to 
the falls of the Missouri in Montana. Here it was 
planned to use a smaller and lighter boat, the iron 
framework of which had been made in the East 
before starting. So covering the framework with 
skins, the boat was placed in the water, but alas, 



The National Group of 1830 153 

it would not float. After experimenting with 
other coverings the boat was abandoned, and sail- 
ing in small canoes, the party pushed westward 
and reached the Pacific Ocean. 1 Something of 
this sort was true in 1830. Years before the 
Constitution in its framework had been made. 
The nation had pushed forward and found itself 
in new conditions. Would the Constitutional 
framework float? Or would it be necessary to 
enter as many canoes as there were States in order 
to continue the journey? Let us now with 1830 
as a starting point, consider briefly some of the 
answers given to these questions. 

First, what was the attitude of Daniel Webster 
with respect to the lodgment of power? On the 
morning of January 26, 1830, Webster, walking up 
Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol, met Senator 
Bell of New Hampshire who remarked to him with 
great feeling: "Mr. Webster it is time, high time 
that the people of this country knew the meaning 
of the Constitution. " "Then, " replied Webster, 
"by the blessing of heaven, before this day ends 
they shall know what I understand it to mean." 2 
If tradition is trustworthy, the great statesman 
upon reaching the Senate chamber found it 

1 Journals of Lewis and Clark Expedition, Thwaite Ed., vol. ii., 
p. 217. ' H. C. Lodge, Webster, p. 178. 



154 Washington and Lincoln 

crowded, and on the wrong side of the door he saw 
Senator Dixon of Alabama, who weighing about 
four hundred pounds, had found it impossible to 
reach his seat, and so settling down like a Dutch 
sloop stuck in the mud at low tide, had cut a hole 
in the door, that through it he might look and 
listen, as the debate continued. But Webster, 
contrary to the popular impression, not being a 
large man, was able to work his way through the 
crowd and reach his seat. 

He was here prepared to continue the debate 
which began on December 29th with the introduc- 
tion of a resolution regarding the sale of public 
lands. 1 On January 19th, Senator Hayne of 
South Carolina had opposed the resolution. This 
called forth a reply from Webster on the next day. 
On the 2 1st, Hayne rising to reply to Webster 
remarked that, "he would not deny that some 
things had fallen from that gentleman which 
rankled here (touching his breast) from which he 
would desire at once to relieve himself. The 
gentleman had discharged his fire in the face of the 

1 This famous controversy is given in full in the Congressional 
Debates, vol. vi., part I. The resolution of Foote, which intro- 
duced the controversy is on p. 3; the formal speech of Hayne on 
January 19th and 25th is given, pp. 43-58; the reply of Webster 
on January 26th is found on pp. 58-80; and the answer of Hayne 
on January 27th is on pp. 82-93. 



The National Group of 1830 155 

Senate. He hoped he would now afford him an 
opportunity of returning the shot." Webster 
replied, "I am ready to receive it. Let the dis- 
cussion proceed." Hayne spoke on this day, and 
again on the 25th, when he finished his speech. 

His argument was one in favour of the centri- 
fugal tendency. In substance he contended that 
the States, under the theory of compact, had the 
right to determine whether the central govern- 
ment, through the laws of Congress, went beyond 
the power delegated to it by the Constitution. As 
he said: "The States may lawfully decide for 
themselves, and each State for itself, whether in a 
given case, the act of the general government 
transcends its power." This was but a brilliant 
exposition in oratorical form of Jefferson's conten- 
tion in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1 799 when he 
said: "The several States which formed that 
instrument, being sovereign and independent, have 
the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction ; 
that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all 
unauthorised acts done under colour of that 
instrument is the rightful remedy." 1 

And now Webster arose to reply. It is useless 
to attempt a description of the scene. The exult- 
ant Southern leaders proud of their champion's 

1 McDonald, Select Documents, p. 152. 



156 Washington and Lincoln 

effort ; the keen and penetrating expression on the 
face of the presiding officer; the anxious attitude 
of Northern men, who wondered whether such an 
argument could be answered ; and finally the black- 
visaged statesman, whose head seemed as massive 
as the granite rocks amid which he was born, and 
whose eyes were as "anthracite furnaces needing 
only to be blown. " x 

And the speech itself with its superb exordium, 
which was like the loosening of the strings of the 
bow of a violin, that later they might be tightened 
and produce exquisite music; the magnificent 
eulogy of his adopted State, which brought tears 
from the sons of Massachusetts; the mingling of 
sarcasm and denunciation, which as one said who 



1 " Not many days ago, I saw at breakfast the notablest of 
your notabilities, Daniel Webster. He is a magnificent specimen. 
You might say to all the world, 'This is our Yankee Englishman; 
such limbs we make in Yankee Land ! ' As a logic fencer, advocate, 
or parliamentary Hercules, one would incline to back him at first 
sight against all the extant world. The tanned complexion; 
that amorphous crag-like face; the dull black eyes under the 
precipice of brows, like dull anthracite furnaces needing only to be 
blown; the mastiff mouth accurately closed; I have not traced so 
much of silent Bersiker rage that I remember in any man. 'I 
guess I should not like to be your nigger! ' Webster is not loqua- 
cious, but he is pertinent, conclusive; a dignified, perfectly bred 
man, though not English in breeding; a man worthy of the best 
reception among us, and meeting such I understand. " — Carlyle to 
Emerson, June 24, 1829. Correspondence, Norton Ed., vol. i., 
p. 260. 



The National Group of 1830 157 

listened, made "thunder and lightning seem as 
peaches and cream in comparison " ; and the match- 
less peroration which closed with the words, 
"Liberty and Union now and forever, one and 
inseparable. " 

But what of the argument? How does he meet 
Hayne's contention of power lodged in the States? 
It is interesting to notice that both Hayne and 
Webster differ from Madison as to the lodgment of 
power. Madison claimed that the power in gov- 
ernment was divisible — some in the States, and 
some in the Union of the States. But Webster 
and Hayne insist that the power is indivisible. 
Hayne contending that the Union was but an 
agent of the States, the indivisible power, derived 
from the people, being lodged in the States. 
Webster contending that the indivisible power, 
derived from the people, was lodged in the Union, 
and therefore the Union possessed a power inde- 
pendent of the States. And even as Hayne gave 
a brilliant exposition of Jefferson's position in the 
Kentucky Resolutions, so Webster in this conten- 
tion was giving popular and classic expression to 
Marshall's reasoning as embodied in his decisions 
from the bench. 

The great jurist, in Cohens vs. Virginia, in 1821, 
had said: "The people make the Constitution, 



158 Washington and Lincoln 

and the people can unmake it. It is the creature 
of their will and lives only by their will. But this 
supreme and irresistible power to make or unmake 
resides only in the whole body of the people; not 
in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any 
of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought 
to be repelled by those to whom the people have 
delegated their power of repelling it." 1 Webster 
takes this thought of power as lodged, and so uses 
it as to furnish the nation a text book which in 
after years it will read. He responds to the old 
toast, "Another hoop for the barrel or more 
cement for the Union," and answers as Washing- 
ton had answered, only with more assurance, 
"More cement for the Union. " 

Second, Andrew Jackson, John C. Calhoun, and 
Henry Clay, and the expression of power. All 
three were from the South, counting Kentucky as 
southern, although at this time it was more 
western than southern and two of them had been 
born in South Carolina. At this time Jackson is 
in the White House. Calhoun is presiding officer 
of the Senate, and Clay is the leader in Congress. 
The man in the White House is the great contra- 
diction of American history; the officer of the 
Senate its great misapplication; the leader of 

1 6 Wheaton, p. 265. 



The National Group of 1830 159 

Congress its great disappointment. They con- 
stitute the Southern triangle of the era. And 
as the points of a triangle are equally distant, so 
these men in temperament and training are 
apart. Jackson is honest but brutal; Clay, 
suave but magnetic; Calhoun, logical but quietly 
passionate. 

These men come together to answer the ques- 
tion as to the expression of power in govern- 
ment. Congress on May 13, 1828, passed a Tariff 
Act known as the "bill of abominations." John 
Randolph caricatured this by saying that, "the 
bill referred to manufactures of no sort or kind, 
but the manufacture of the President of the 
United States. " l Following this, and in the same 
year, Calhoun wrote his Exposition, which was 
the arsenal from which Hayne drew his forensic 
ammunition on lodgment of power as mentioned. 
On July 14, 1832, Congress passed a new Tariff Bill 
which reduced somewhat the duties but retained 
the protective feature. On November 24, 1832, 
a convention authorised by the Legislature met in 
South Carolina and passed the "Ordinance," to 
nullify "certain acts of the Congress of the 
United States, purporting to be laws, laying duties 
and imposts on the importation of foreign com- 

1 Taussig, Tariff History of the United States, p. 101, note. 



t6o Washington and Lincoln 

modifies." And further to "declare null and 

void, and no law. nor binding upon their State. 

its officers or eiti.-ens." 1 the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 

183J. It also set February 1. 1833, as the time 

tor this to go into effect So mueh for the bare 

statement of facta. 

Here was a new am. startling situation. A single 
State in the Union raising its arm in defiance of 

the whole Union as represented in its legislative 
body. The fact that a State presumed to pass 
upon the constitutionality of a law was not new. 
The further faet that a State threatened to nullify 

a national law within the State was not new. But 

never before had a State proceeded in the orderly 
way of calling a eonventiou. and in the detinue 

manner of naming a date. There might as Cal- 
houn insisted, be nothing in this position that was 

not in the Virginia and Kentueky Resolutions. 
although Madison in old age came forth from his 
ret i r em ent to deny Calhoun's claim.' Put the 

two States in 1 70S did not go beyond a statement 

of opinion. South Carolina asserts its determina- 
tion to aet. Surely something must be done. 
The eye of the nation turns from the " thinking 

machine" of Fort 1U11 to the grim old soldier who 

1 v. <.:.-.: :v. . .vs 

• H - . :V. . wl ix . p. 341, tT. 



The National Group o( [830 161 

is now President, What will he do? At the 
celebration of Jefferson's birthday on April [3, 
1830 in Washington, he had startled and thrilled 
the company by proposing the toast, "Our Federal 
Union; it must be preserved!" 1 Away at the 
"Hermitage" in [832, he had watched the pro- 
ceedings of the South Carolina convention, and 
intimated to the Secretary of the Navy, that it 
would be well to keep in touch with Charleston. 
And finally on December io, [83a, he issued his 
" Proclamation," the longesl state paper in Ameri 
ran history. Hut if the words are many, and 
some of the sentences soft, beneath the language 
is the hard fist of "Old Hickory," asserting his 
determination to uphold the law o{ Congress in 
every State of the Union. And if necessary, he 
adds privately, but officially, he will march two 
hundred thousand soldiers into the State of Cal- 
houn and Hayne. "The country," to use hisapt 
simile, "was like a bag oi meal with both cuds 
open, Pick it up in the middle or endwise, it will 
run out. He was prepared to tie the bag and save 

■ At this banquet Calhoun followed Jackson with the toast; 
"The Union: Next to our liberty mosl dear: may we all remember 
th. 1 1 It can only be preserved by respecting the rights oi theStati 
and distributing equally the benefit and burden of the Union." 
Parton's, / .•/<■ oj Jackson, vol. iii., i>- 883. 

1 Gaillard Hunt':.. John C, Calhoun, i». 178. 



1 62 Washington and Lincoln 

the country." 1 The strong arm of the Union is 
raised to meet the arm of a State. 

What will happen? was the question being asked 
on every hand. South Carolina in apparent hesi- 
tation extends the day for action to March ist. 
In this crisis Henry Clay comes to the front and 
takes command of the situation in Congress. 
After conference with Calhoun, he arises in the 
Senate on February 12, 1833, and asks permission 
to introduce a bill to modify the tariff. By this 
procedure he balances with compromise, the force 
threatened by Jackson, although the day before the 
bill passed, the Force Bill based upon Jackson's 
Proclamation became law. 2 

Much speculation has been indulged in as to 
whether South Carolina or the Federal govern- 
ment won in this controversy. The answer is, 
neither. The State threatened to secede and did 
not; Jackson threatened to use force and did not. 
A compromise was effected. The speculation re- 
calls the words of the philosopher who said "he 
would as soon be dead as alive. " And when some 
one asked him why he did not die, he replied, that 
he "would as soon be alive as dead. " So with the 
Union and the State. The question as to the 

1 Parton's, Life of Jackson, vol. iii., p. 462. 

* Congressional Debates, vol. ix., part 2, p. 1903. 



The National Group of 1830 163 

expression of power in government had arisen, and 
the old answer had been given, "through law, in 
the spirit of compromise, if possible, by force when 
necessary. " 

Third, William Lloyd Garrison, and the abuse 
of power. Government is something more than a 
state paper, with officials elected to enact laws or 
appointed to interpret them. The movements 
that are beyond formal legislative or judicial action 
are sometimes the most potent. Daniel Dulany 
was only a private citizen in 1765, when he wrote 
his great argument on taxation and representa- 
tion, yet William Pitt, in 1766, held a copy in his 
hand, from which he quoted in making his famous 
speech in Parliament in opposition to the ministry. 
Tom Paine was never a member of the Continental 
Congress, yet, in 1776, he wrote the pamphlet 
which made imperative the act of the Congress in 
issuing the Declaration. The Federalist was but 
one of many collections of papers published in 
America at the time, and its contributors signed 
other than their true names, yet this collection of 
papers turned the tide in favour of the Constitu- 
tion in 1787. 

So, in 1830, the strongest answer to the question 
as to the abuse of power was given by one beyond 
the official circle. As if feeling the sense of fitness, 



164 Washington and Lincoln 

this answer, which was in spirit a protest, was 
given in the old storm-centre of the Revolutionary 
period, the city of Boston. And further to 
emphasise the sense of fitness, this answer was 
given by a man who did his work within a stone's 
throw of the famous State House in which Sam 
Adams had spent so many thrilling and protesting 
hours, on the corner of Water and Congress 
streets in Boston. 

On January 1, 1831, Garrison began giving his 
answer through a publication called The Libera- 
tor. 1 The conditions under which it was pub- 
lished were not promising. Type was borrowed 
from one shop, and a press was used in another 
shop. And the paper was mailed out from a low, 
dingy room under the eaves of a structure called 
the Merchants Building. In its mechanical make- 
up the paper was not very imposing. It measured 
nine and a quarter by fourteen inches, had four 
columns to a page, and four pages to a number. 
The editor and printer was poor, unknown, erratic, 
having no political affiliation, and without a coun- 
try, for he had voluntarily read himself out of the 
Union. But, as Lee said of Tom Paine, "he had 

1 See William Lloyd Garrison, the Story of His Life Told by 
His Children, vol. i., chapter viii., for detailed account of publica- 
tion of The Liberator. 



The National Group of 1830 165 

genius in his eyes." And at the head of the first 
page of his little sheet he said something which 
few noticed at the time, but which makes pretty 
good history to-day. This is what he said: "I 
shall strenuously contend for the immediate en- 
franchisement of our slave population — I will be 
as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as just- 
ice on this subject — I do not wish to think, or 
speak, or write in moderation — I am in earnest— 
I will not equivocate — I will not retreat a single 
inch, and I will be heard!" And thus it was that 
the little sheet slipped out into the world to a few 
hundred subscribers. 

It may seem incongruous to pass from Webster, 
Jackson, and Clay to this unknown man. But 
history as read to-day justifies the connection. 
The National period cannot be understood without 
counting in the slavery agitator and his little 
paper. His printing-press began to rumble, and, 
by and by, the foundation of the capitol shook. 
He placed his small white sheet with its black ink 
over against the vast white cotton fields with their 
black slaves. He challenged the economic develop- 
ment of the South, and halting King Cotton as he 
stalked down the national highway, struck from 
his hand the golden sceptre of power. He looked 
at Frederick Douglass for the first time, and 



1 66 Washington and Lincoln 

raising his voice so that the North and South 
were compelled to hear, he asked, "Am I 
looking at a thing, at property, or at a human 
being?" 1 

Some great movements in history, like big rivers 
that sweep across continents, have small begin- 
nings. This beginning in the print-shop was small 
enough, but its ending was great enough. The 
fact is, this man and the movement he represented 
snatched the loosened strands of American tradi- 
tion which began at the Hall of Independence, and 
saved the web of its history. From his dingy 
room he put a lever under slavery, and lifted the 
black man from the lower level of philosophical 
debate in the Constitutional convention to the 
higher level of moral imperative in the abolition 
agitation. And to this abolition propaganda be- 
longs the credit of having seized upon the noble 
impulses that at times warmed the hearts of 
Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and James 
Madison, and of having hurled them at the con- 
science of a nation. This cause, which Garrison re- 
presented, repeated the question that Washington 
asked, namely, What is the abuse of power in 
government? But it did what the great leader 

1 See William Lloyd Garrison, the Story of His Life Told by His 
Children, vol. iii., p. 19. 



The National Group of 1830 167 

failed to do: it made the people answer, and 
ultimately answer in no uncertain tone — "slavery." 
Fourth, what was the source of power in the 
opinion of John Quincy Adams ? Let us now return 
to the capitol of the nation. Something strange 
is happening. A great American is about to be 
born again, politically. Look at him for a moment. 
At the age of seven, he is on his father's porch at 
Braintree listening to the guns at Bunker Hill. 
At fourteen, he is in St. Petersburg as secretary to 
the American minister. At twenty-seven, he is 
himself the minister to Holland. At thirty, he is 
minister to Prussia. At thirty-six, he is a member 
of the United States Senate. At forty, he is again 
in Russia as minister. At forty-five, he is one of 
the commissioners at the Treaty of Ghent. At 
forty -eight, he is minister to Great Britain. At 
fifty, he is Secretary of State. At fifty-eight, he is 
President of the United States. At sixty-two, 
going into retirement, he writes in his diary that 
"the sun of his life is setting in the clouds of 
gloom. " Two years pass. One day the old man 
(for men were old long before sixty in those days), 
receives a delegation of farmers and neighbours, 
who come to ask him to run for Congress. They 
hesitate, not sure how an ex-President will receive 
such a suggestion. He detects their hesitation, 



168 Washington and Lincoln 

and assures them that such a suggestion will be 
kindly received. And then he adds words that 
must never be forgotten while the Republic 
endures. He says: "Nor in my opinion would an 
ex-President of the United States be degraded by 
serving as a Selectman of his town, if elected 
thereto by the people." 1 And he is elected, not 
Selectman, but member of Congress, taking his 
seat in December, 1831. Such in a few words is 
the career of John Quincy Adams. 

As he takes his seat in Congress, which gives him 
his opportunity, two things happen. First, from 
the South comes a demand for the annexation of 
Texas, thus reopening the ugly question of slavery, 
which had remained closed since the Missouri 
Compromise of 1820. Second, in the North, the 
first pebbles of agitation are being dropped by the 
abolitionists in the waters of the nation, and 
the ripples of petition are beginning to wash 
against the walls of Congress. 

The leaders from the South, supported largely 
by the leaders from the North, say that these 
petitions shall not be received. Later, they say 
these petitions may be received, but must be 

1 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. viii., p. 239. It is useless 
to write of American history for this first half of the 19th cent- 
ury without reading these remarkable Memoirs. 



The National Group of 1830 169 

rejected without discussion. But no, says Adams, 
they shall be received and discussed. Then begins 
a debate which continues for a decade, and which 
for bitterness has no parallel in our history. 

What is the meaning of this debate? The 
mistake must not be made of assuming that it was 
mere passion and selfish interest pitted against 
reason and unselfish devotion. This was the 
splendid noonday hour of intellectual leadership 
for the South in Congress. One day in 1833, 
Calhoun is answering Webster, and John Randolph, 
who is listening, notices a hat on the desk in front 
which interferes with his view of the speaker. 
" Remove it, " he exclaims; " I want to see Webster 
die muscle by muscle." 1 There were great men 
from the South, who, many supposed, could 
mentally annihilate such a giant as Webster. And 
yet these men deny the right of petition regarding 
slavery in the District of Columbia. 

How can this be explained? The answer is, 
that a conception of government which prevailed 
in the Constitutional period is given a direction 
which the leaders of that period could not antici- 
pate. This theory, which has been mentioned, 
was that the end of society, in organised govern- 
ment, is the protection of property. In 1830, the 

1 Gaillard Hunt, Calhoun, p. 184. 



170 Washington and Lincoln 

Southern leaders planted themselves firmly on this 
conception. They said, the end of society is the 
protection of property; slaves are property under 
the Constitution; agitation against slavery is agi- 
tation against property — therefore these petitions 
shall not be received. 

Of course they do not deny all right of petition, 
for they know this is guaranteed by the First 
Amendment to the Constitution. But they know 
that such right is qualified to the extent that no 
petitions are allowable that are disrespectful or 
contrary to the Constitution. And they argue 
that petitions against slavery are disrespectful 
because against property, and slaves are property, 
and the Constitution exists for the protection of 
property. 

Now glance for a moment at Adams. He is not 
an agitator, or reformer, or even an abolitionist, 
but a profound, fearless, constitutional statesman. 
He stands by the Constitution as he understands 
it. He says: "I hold this resolution [the gag-law] 
to be a violation of the Constitution of the United 
States, of the rules of the House, and of the rights 
of my constituents. " J He knows that if this is a 
government deriving its power from the people, 
then the people have not only the right to choose 

1 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. ix., p. 287. 



The National Group of 1830 171 

their servants, but the right to influence them 
after chosen. It is the democratic spirit pushing 
for recognition. He does not deny that under the 
Constitution property has rights. But he says, 
what James Wilson alone said in 1787, "The rights 
of property shall not be superior to the rights of 
man." 1 One aim of government (not its end) is 
the protection of property, because the end of 
government is the development of man. He took 
the words in the preamble, "We, the people, " and 
insisted that they ought to mean more than the 
founders intended they should mean. And so in 
1844, at seventy-seven years of age, as he stood 
victorious in the battle for the rights of petition, 
he answered the question as to the source of power, 
and found it in the people. 

As the study of this period comes to a close, let 
us briefly summarise. The National group of 
about 1830 was called upon to shape the affairs of 
government in a nation that had changed in the 
years following the Constitutional convention in 
four directions: First, in territorial expansion, 
carrying with it increase in population. Second, 
in the use of steam as motive power. Third, in a 
sectional cleavage due to economic development. 
Fourth, in a deep and wide-spread growth of the 

1 Madison's Journal, Hunt Ed., vol. i., p. 353. 



172 Washington and Lincoln 

spirit of democracy. Amid these changes were 
two opposing tendencies in government, the centri- 
fugal and centripetal. These changes and tend- 
encies forced upon the leaders the problem of 
government. In trying to solve this problem, the 
old questions arose. The answers given to these 
questions did not contradict those as given by 
Washington and the Constitutional group of 1787. 
And yet the answers are not the same. What is 
the difference? Is it not this? — Washington stood 
in the early dawn of the composite empire. The 
stars were only fading from the sky. The grey 
streamers of light were in the East. The mist was 
upon hill and valley. And in the dim light of 
passing night and coming day, he saw the rocks 
and trees of government. Now, however, in the 
year 1830, the morning of the composite empire is 
further advanced. The stars have melted away. 
The sun is rimming the horizon. The mists have 
lifted. And in the sparkle of the clear air, the 
rocks and trees of government are clearly dis- 
cerned. It is the era of definition. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 

On March 4, 1861, the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court extended the Bible, and the Presi- 
dent-elect, placing his hand upon it, said: "I, 
Abraham Lincoln, do solemnly swear that I will 
faithfully execute the office of President of the 
United States, and will, to the best of my ability, 
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of 
the United States. " 

The great leader, in the act of taking the oath, 
is for a brief moment the central figure in a national 
tableau. l Standing in the portico by his side are 
two men, Breckinridge from Kentucky and Doug- 
las of Illinois. The one, as the retiring President 
of the Senate, is present in his official capacity. 
In sympathy he is elsewhere, for in time he will 
turn away from the capitol, join the Confederate 
army, and do his best to withdraw from the 
Union. The other, the recent leader of a great 

1 Nicolay and Hay, A History, vol. iii., p. 326. This page 
furnished the writer his suggestion for this inaugural group. 
However, the language is his own, and the thought much ampli- 
fied for the purpose of this study. 

173 



174 Washington and Lincoln 

party, is more than a mere onlooker. He is here 
to witness the inauguration of a man whom he 
knows better than does any man in public life. 
He is short in stature, but by a single act he 
suddenly looms large, as he takes the hat of his 
victorious antagonist. For by this act he seems 
to hold the tall hat before the nation and say, 
"Political differences are in the past. In this 
supreme hour I am for the Union. " Here is the 
question of power as lodged. Breckinridge says 
it is in the States forming the Union. Douglas 
says it is in the Union as formed by the 
States. 

And standing in the portico is the venerable 
Roger Taney, now eighty-four years of age. 
Clad in his robes, he is the representative of that 
Court which Washington said was "the keystone 
in the arch of the Constitution. " x It is a strange 
juxtaposition that the man who, in his official 
capacity, had said that the "negroes were so far 
inferior that they had no rights which the white 
man was bound to respect," 2 should administer 
the oath to the man who had said of the negro 
that "in the right to eat the bread, without the 
leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 434, note. 
* Dred Scott Decision, 1857; 19 Howard, p. 407. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 175 

he is my equal — and the equal of every living 
man." 1 

From the vantage ground in the portico may 
be seen the flashing muskets carried by soldiers 
stationed on the roofs of buildings, and on a hill 
near by a squadron of light artillery, with an aged 
army officer walking uneasily to and fro — the 
same whom Andrew Jackson sent into South 
Carolina in 1830. Somewhere in the assembled 
group are men from the Border States — patriotic 
men, now torn by conflicting emotions, and 
wondering whether some peaceable solution of the 
difficulty may be found. Here is the question of 
power as expressed: The Chief Justice, the symbol 
of the law. The soldiers with muskets and cannon, 
the symbol of force behind the law. The states- 
men from the Border States — Blair of Maryland, 
Holt of Kentucky, and Bates of Missouri — the 
symbol of compromise through the law. 

And the capitol building is incomplete, for the 
dome is in process of construction. About are 
blocks of granite and derricks used to hoist them 
into place. On the ground is the bronze statue of 
Freedom, intended for the pinnacle of the dome. It 

1 Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. i., p. 289. It 
recalls an earlier contrast, that of Marshall administering the 
oath to Jefferson, and suggests the irony of history. 



176 Washington and Lincoln 

is only a touch of imagination, but perhaps Seward, 
Chase, Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and Stevens 
are standing by and saying, "Now you are on the 
ground and you belong here, for no statue of Free- 
dom should crown the capitol building of the 
nation while four million human beings are, under 
the law, nothing more than things, and not to be 
taken from their owners, save by due process of 
law. But soon the shackles will fall and then you 
will be hoisted to your place. " This is, in a new 
form, the little printing-press of Garrison, that 
rumbled under the eaves of the building in Boston. 
Here is the question of power as abused. 

And the multitude of people? The record 
states that a vast throng assembled. They stand 
silently while the oath is administered. They have 
no official place in the programme, other than to 
march in the inaugural procession. Yet as they 
look upon the scene, the more thoughtful must be 
saying to themselves: "This is ours. The Presi- 
dent-elect, the Justices, Senators, Congressmen, 
and other officers constitute the government. But 
this government, imposing as it is, is the servant 
of something stronger than itself, namely ourselves 
— the people. " This is the preamble to the Con- 
stitution — "We the people of these United States. " 
Here is the question of power as derived. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 177 

And the atmosphere which envelops this tab- 
leau. Things in life as in nature are modified in 
aspect and proportion by atmosphere. On this 
inauguration day there is a tenseness of mood 
which indicates a change. In 1787, the nation 
was in its dawn, with the mist upon the valley, 
obscuring the rocks and trees of government, and 
causing them to appear in dim outline. In 1830, 
the sun was well above the Eastern sky-line, and, 
in the sparkling morning light, the trees and rocks 
were sharply clear. Now it is the noon hour for 
the nation, and the sun is high in the heavens. 
But the air is heavy and the light of a murky hue; 
black clouds are in the sky ; the birds are twittering 
and the cattle in the fields are herding; the dust 
in the roadway is in a swirl; a storm is about to 
break. It is the change in atmosphere, which 
indicates that the era of definition has passed into 
the era of application. 

But does the great leader catch the symbolism 
of all this as he takes the oath? The answer to 
this question is not found in the inaugural address 
he has read. At this moment he is the cynosure 
of the civilised world, and, because of this, his 
official utterance is dominated by caution and 
conciliation. Therefore it is necessary to go be- 
hind the inaugural message and seek a revelation 
xa 



178 Washington and Lincoln 

of his mind in the days between his election in 
November, i860, and the eventful March 4, 
1 86 1. During these days he was a perfect illus- 
tration of Carlyle's words as applied to Frederick 
the Great: "A man politely impregnable to the 
intrusion of human curiosity ; able to look cheerily 
into the very eyes of men, and talk in a social way 
face to face, and continue intrinsically invisible to 
them." 1 But enough is now known to furnish 
definite answers to these questions. 

It is evident that he realised that the mighty 
problem of power in government was being swung 
over from definition to the region of action. The 
decisions given by Marshall and Taney ; the legis- 
lative debates with Webster, Calhoun, Hayne, and 
John Quincy Adams as the contenders ; the proclama- 
tion by Jackson, and the compromises of Clay; 
all these had failed to settle the controversy. But 
though the National era with its ideas had proven 
inadequate, the men of this generation had not 
moved beyond them. There is a theory held by 
psychologists called the impulsiveness of con- 
sciousness. According to this theory ideas tend 
to pass into action unless hindered by opposite or 
divergent ideas. And this theory was about to 
have a stupendous illustration in the nation. 

1 Carlyle, Frederick the Great, Centennial Ed., vol. ii., p. 374. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 179 

When Webster came to his last days at Marsh- 
field, he requested his faithful attendant to anchor 
a sail-boat within range of his window. And then 
he instructed him to hoist the flag to the topmast 
each morning, and to light the lamps in the rigging 
each evening. For, he added, "when I go down, 
I want to go with my colours flying and my lamps 
burning. " A few hours before he died, he uttered 
his last words, as he feebly exclaimed — "I still 
live!" 1 In a larger sense than he intended, 
Webster and the other leaders of the National era 
still lived. And the ominous fact in 1861 is that 
men holding opposite conceptions of government 
as enunciated in the preceding generation insist 
that their flags remain at the topmasts. And 
Lincoln's colossal task is to lead a movement for 
loosening the grip upon its signal halyards of one 
portion in the nation, and the tightening the grip 
of another portion, that one flag may come down 
and the other remain up. 

This was the thought in the mind of the great 
leader when, on December 21, i860, a despatch 
having been handed to him announcing the 
attempted secession of South Carolina the day 
before, he turned to his secretary and dictated the 
following to his friend Washburn: "Please present 

1 Curtis, Life of Webster, vol. ii., pp. 685, 701. 



180 Washington and Lincoln 

my respects to the General [Scott] and tell him 
confidentially I shall be obliged to him to be as 
well prepared as he can either to hold or retake 
the forts as the case may require, at or after my 
inauguration." 1 In the quiet, decisive voice of 
the leader, the click of triggers on muskets levelled 
for the defence and destruction of government can 
almost be heard. 

But the other query, whether Lincoln recognised, 
in the midst of the sudden change of atmosphere, 
the old questions that the leaders of 1776, 1787, 
and 1830 asked? In other words, was he to 
maintain the continuity of the national tradition 
by recognising certain questions about govern- 
ment which had come over from former years, at 
the same time offering his contribution to a 
developing tradition, by acting under changed 
conditions? The old questions are in his inaugural 
address either by direct statement or inference. 
However, it is possible to go back of this document, 
and catch a glimpse of his mind at the time he 
wrote it. 

One day in January, 1 861, he withdrew from the 
circle of his friends in order to secure absolute 
seclusion. With true Western hospitality he had 
met callers from all parts of the nation in a room 

1 Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. i., p. 660. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 181 

set apart for his use in the State House at Spring- 
field. But now the time had come to write his 
inaugural address. So finding a room over a store 
on the main street of the prairie village, he shut 
himself away for three days. The walls of the 
room were bare, for neither from the canvas did 
statesmen look down upon him, nor from the 
titles of books did thinkers greet him. Yet he was 
not alone, for on the plain table were four docu- 
ments: — the Constitution, Jackson's Proclama- 
tion, Webster's Debate with Hayne, and Clay's 
Compromise Bills of 1 850. T The era had changed, 
but the change did not consist in the raising of new 
questions about government, but in a new rela- 
tion to the old questions. Lincoln's task was to 
"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" 
as defined in Webster's reply ; through the use of 
force as suggested by Jackson's Proclamation; and 
modified by Clay's Compromise. 

That he was under the spell of the past and felt 
himself in a great historic succession is evident 
from the fact that when, a few days later, he said 
good-bye in the little station by the iron rails, he 
asked his neighbours to remember him in their 
prayers, for he added: "I now leave not knowing 
when or whether ever I may return, with a task 

x Tarbell'3 Life of Lincoln, vol. i., p. 403. 



1 82 Washington and Lincoln 

before me greater than that which rested upon 
Washington." 1 

Having determined Lincoln's recognition of the 
questions about government, and his appreciation 
of the new attitude he must take to these questions, 
let us retrace our steps and notice the tendencies 
which have been at work during the generation, 
and which now culminate and create the era of 
application. Here, the reader is reminded of na- 
tional continuity which has continued unbroken 
through the years. For even as the same ques- 
tions have arisen in the different eras, the same 
tendencies have connected the eras. 

First, there is the tendency in the direction of 
territorial expansion. In 1861, the god Terminus 
has reached the bank of the Rio Grande River in 
the South-west, and the shore of the Pacific in the 
West, adding 1,219,537 square miles, and making 
the total area 2,974,159 square miles. 2 From the 
national domain ten new States have been formed, 
giving the Republic thirty -four States and seven 
territories. The story of the influence of terri- 
torial expansion upon the national government 
has never been fully told. It has influenced 

1 Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. i., p. 672. 
' "A Century of Population Growth, 1 790-1900," U. S. Census, 
p. 54- 



The Civil War Group of 1861 183 

government at every stage of its development. In 
1763, it raised the question of imperial control as 
regards taxation and led to the war of 1776. 
Now, beginning with the purchase of Louisiana, 
then the acquisition of Texas, and still later the 
adjustment of the Oregon line, it raises the ques- 
tion of imperial control as regards slavery, and 
leads to the war in 1861. 

In 1820, the great Democrat who had carried 
through the supreme imperial task in our history 
by purchasing the area from the Mississippi River 
to the Rocky Mountains, said when he heard of 
the Missouri Compromise: 

This momentous question, like a fire-bell in the 
night, awakened and filled me with terror. I consid- 
ered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed 
indeed for the present. But this is a reprieve only, 
not a final sentence. The coincidence of a marked 
principle, moral and political, with a geographical line, 
once conceived, I feared would never be obliterated 
from the mind; that it would be recurring on every 
occasion and renewing visitations, until it would 
kindle such mutual and mortal hatred as to render 
separation preferable to eternal discord. 1 

Jefferson was right in finding in this expansion 
the cause for controversy. For the question then 
arose, and continued for more than a generation, 

1 Writings of Jefferson, Ford Ed., vol. x., p. 157. 



184 Washington and Lincoln 

whether the control over the new territory was 
imperial, and if so, what was the nature of that 
control? In 1 850, another compromise was effected, 
and the principle of "Congressional non-inter- 
ference" was declared in New Mexico and Utah. 
In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was passed, 
which enunciated the doctrine of "popular sover- 
eignty," and by statute repealed the Missouri 
Compromise. In 1857, came the Dred Scott decis- 
ion with its obiter dictum that the slave has not 
the rights of a citizen, and, not being a citizen but 
property, slavery is constitutional in the terri- 
tories. But whatever form the controversy as- 
sumed, the question at issue was always the result 
of expansion and involved imperial control. And 
curiously, as England in 1765 differentiated 
between the home country and the colonies in 
legislation, so now does the nation, as between the 
composite empire formed by the States and the 
territories as the property of the empire thus 
formed. For all, save a few extremists, are agreed 
that the States forming the empire have the right 
under the Constitution to regulate their domestic 
institutions. The contention arises as to the nat- 
ure and extent of imperial control in the terri- 
tories, as it arose during the 18th century regarding 
control in the colonies. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 185 

Behind this controversy over imperial control 
in the national domain was the constant pressure 
of slavery as a sectionalising influence. In 1861, 
sectionalism as a tendency has reached its apogee. 
There is a saying that a difference in degree, if 
sufficiently great, constitutes a difference in kind. 
The black clouds in the sky may be larger in the 
afternoon than in the morning; but if enough 
larger, a storm comes. So with sectionalism, 
which has grown to such an extent that a change 
in atmosphere has come. In the South, King 
Cotton is absolute. In the passing of a genera- 
tion, the area devoted to the black traffic has 
doubled ; the number of slaves has almost doubled ; 
the average price paid for slaves has more than 
doubled ; and the money received annually for the 
cotton crop has doubled twice over. 

With this economic development has come a 
corresponding change in moral sentiment. The 
theory of mitigation by scattering is forgotten. 
Now men look upon slavery as an institution to 
be cultivated in the States and protected in the 
national domain. The necessary evil of 1830 has 
become the positive good, sanctioned by Scripture 
and justified by civilisation. An exalted enthusi- 
ast borrows the sober thought of the leaders and 
gives excessive statement to it by saying that the 



186 Washington and Lincoln 

cotton crop is "the gravitating power that keeps 
the civilised world in its proper orbit as it whirls 
through the grand cycles of its existence. " J 

But a change has taken place in the North, 
which in a modified sense must be considered a 
sectional tendency, although its ultimate end was 
the destruction of sectionalism. The last word 
has not been said upon the influence of abolition- 
ism. It is an open question whether the extreme 
sectionalism of the South was the result of aboli- 
tionism in the North, or whether the spread of 
abolitionism in the North was due to extreme 
sectionalism in the South. King Cotton never 
had undisputed sway in the North. In the earlier 
days, however, men were disposed to doff their 
hats, if not to kneel in his presence. Now he is 
in a bad way. And the explanation for this may 
be traced, in a measure, to the heroic work of 
Garrison and his followers. To be sure, abolition- 
ism in its original form no longer exists. It did 
its work, and, about 1840, disappeared. But as the 
seed which disappears in the ground reappears in 
another form in the harvest, so with this move- 
ment. Moral agitation, which had doubtless 
forced the South to defend slavery on scriptural 
grounds, gave way to political organisation. 

1 Smith, Parties and Slavery, p. 181. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 187 

The possibilities of this political organisation 
are seen in the fact that, whereas the slave-holding 
States increased in population in the decade end- 
ing with i860 only 27.33 per cent., the free States 
increased 41.16 per cent. These possibilities are 
now realised, for a national political party has 
come into power which takes as its policy the 
right under the Constitution to extend imperial 
control over the national domain and prohibit 
therein the existence of slavery. As this party 
derives its support entirely from the North, in- 
cluding a slight support from the Border States, 
it is, for the time being, a sectional tendency. 

With these expanding and sectionalising tend- 
encies were the old tendencies known as the centri- 
fugal and the centripetal. A reading of the lit- 
erature in this period shows a relative absence of 
discussion over these tendencies. There is nothing 
on a par with the controversies in those early State 
conventions- called to ratify the Constitution. 
Neither is there anything to remind one of the 
masterful decisions handed down by John Mar- 
shall or the profound debates of Calhoun and 
Webster. The explanation for this may be in the 
fact that about all has been said that can be said. 
Perhaps another explanation is the fact that, as 
this is an era of action, words count for less than 



1 88 Washington and Lincoln 

at other times. Whatever the explanation is, the 
fact remains that no added word is said on either 
side. Read Marshall on McCullough vs. Mary- 
land, Cohens vs. Virginia, or Webster in reply to 
Hayne ; study the Virginia and Kentucky Resolu- 
tions as written by Madison and Jefferson, or 
Disquisitions on Government by Calhoun, and you 
have the argument. l 

It would, however, be a mistake to assume that 
the tendencies are not at work, because the argu- 
ments have long since been made. For, at this 
time, a leadership as adroit as any exercised by 
Jefferson or Hamilton in their palmiest days is 
shaping these tendencies to proportions more 
imposing than ever before in the history of the 
nation. 

In the South, the centrifugal tendency on a 
stupendous scale, under the superb leadership of 
Jefferson Davis, Toombs, Stephens, and Benja- 
min, is throwing the power away from the whole 
at the centre, to the parts on the circumference, 
at the same time drawing some of the parts to 
another centre, and forming a sectional whole. 
It is a sort of smaller centripetal tendency working 
within a larger centrifugal. In other words, it is 

1 The exception, of course, is the doctrine of secession. But this 
is a logical deduction from the doctrine of nullification. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 189 

the doctrine of State Rights being modified by the 
necessities of sectionalism. That this leadership 
is adroit admits of no doubt. In the Presidential 
election of i860, the three candidates that oppose 
the Republican candidate divide the vote of the 
South. These three candidates differ from one 
another. Breckinridge stands for slavery regard- 
less of the Union. Bell stands for the Union 
regardless of slavery. And Douglas seems to 
stand for the Union and slavery. When the vote 
is counted and announced on the morning of 
November 7th, it is found that the combined vote 
of Bell and Douglas is greater in the Southern 
States by 134,877 than the vote of Breckinridge. 1 
Yet within three months, seven States secede and 
form the Southern Confederacy. And within a 
few months four more States join it, including the 
State of George Washington and John Marshall. 
This sudden shifting and marshalling of sentiment 
is without parallel in history. 

But in the North the centripetal tendency, on a 
more quiet yet equally vast scale, is drawing 
power from the parts on the circumference to the 
whole at the centre, at the same time throwing the 

1 Stan wood, History of Presidential Elections, p. 234. The 
popular vote was as follows: Lincoln, 1,866,452; Douglas, 
1.376,957; Breckinridge, 849,781; Bell, 588,879. 



190 Washington and Lincoln 

parts away from the Southern sectional whole. 
It is a sort of centrifugal tendency working within 
a larger centripetal. It is the doctrine of national- 
ism being intensified by the danger of sectionalism. 
The South finds its argument in the brain of Cal- 
houn, who revelled in the historical fact of the 
compact of thirteen States in 1787. 1 The North 
finds its argument in the brain of Webster, who 
gloried in a nation expanding beyond that of the 
thirteen States. The Southern argument is more 
historical than actual. The Northern argument 
is more actual than historical. On December 20, 
i860, the convention of South Carolina met and 
passed its famous resolution of secession, which 
attracted as much attention by its brevity as its 
assertion. It read as follows : 

We, the people of the State of South Carolina in 
convention assembled, do declare and ordain and it is 
hereby declared and ordained that the ordinance 
adopted by us in convention on the 23d of May in the 
year of our Lord seventeen hundred and eighty-eight, 
whereby the Constitution of the United States was 
ratified, and all the acts and parts of acts of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of 
said Constitution are hereby repealed, and the Union 

1 Calhoun in his later writings seems to have abandoned the 
compact theory. But the average mind in the South failed 
to follow his distinctions and held to the theory in its simplest 
form. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 191 

now subsisting between South Carolina and the other 
States, under the name of the " United States of 
America," is hereby dissolved. 1 



This statement of South Carolina, which may 
be accepted as typical of all the seceding States, is 
based upon the assumption that the States, not 
the people of the States, formed the Union at the 
beginning. The North might grant this assump- 
tion, although, at the best, it is but a reasonable 
assumption, and still have the stronger end of the 
argument. For the all-important question is not 
what did men intend in 1787, but what did men 
feel in 1 861. In the Revolutionary struggle, Alex- 
ander Hamilton impatiently remarked that he 
was weary of discussions based upon musty parch- 
ments. While the Constitution could hardly be 
called a musty parchment, the arguments ad- 
vanced, based upon the intentions of the men who 
wrote it, certainly lacked reality. The fact upon 
which the North based its argument in the last 
analysis, and which was shot through and through 
with reality, was that the Union now did not con- 
sist of thirteen but of thirty-four States. The 
Southern position may be illustrated by the story 
told in connection with a meeting of scientists at 

1 MacDonald, Select Documents, p. 441. 



192 Washington and Lincoln 

a mountain resort. One of the members of the 
convention, looking from his window in the hotel, 
saw another member struggling with a boulder 
on the hillside. He called to him and inquired 
what he was doing. The reply came back that 
"he was moving the boulder up the hill about three 
feet, in order that it would fit in with his theory. " 
The huge boulder in 1861 was the fact of thirty- 
four not of thirteen States. The South must move 
the boulder, in order to fit the argument into the 
fact. But it could not be moved. J 

The strength of the Northern position may best 
be stated in the words of a distinguished Justice of 
the Supreme Court, himself a Southerner, who 
wrote with the conflict in retrospect. He says: 

In 1789, the States were the creators of the Fede- 
ral government; in 1861, the Federal government 
was the creator of a large majority of the States. In 
1789, the Federal government had derived all the 

'Moses Coit Tyler says: "As the earlier Whig doctrine 
for the rejection of the taxing power of the general government 
meant what in the 19th century we have commonly known as 
Nullification, so the later Whig doctrine of separation from the 
empire meant precisely what we now mean by the word Seces- 
sion. " — Literary History of Am. Rev., vol. i., p. 477. This 
attempt to find a historic parallel, which is made by some recent 
writers, is far-fetched. The Southern States never denied their 
representation in the imperial system against which they rebelled. 
The thirteen colonies denied that in any real sense they were 
represented in the imperial system. This distinction is so funda- 
mental that it makes meaningless the attempted parallelism. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 193 

powers delegated to it by the Constitution from the 
States; in 1861, a majority of the States derived all 
their powers and attributes as States from Congress 
under the Constitution. In 1789, the people of the 
United States were citizens of States originally sover- 
eign and independent; in 1861, a vast majority of 
the people of the United States were citizens of States 
that were originally mere dependencies of the Fed- 
eral government, which was the author and giver of 
their political being. 1 

Justice Lamar assumes the historical accuracy of 
Calhoun's contention, but recognises the actual 
potency of Webster's reasoning. The national 
domain was the determining factor which made 
possible the Confederation in 1781. Now, after 
eight decades, this domain, carved into States, 
again augments the centripetal tendency, and 
holds the Union for its supreme test. 

Such were the tendencies which had been at 
work through the generation, which gave occasion 
for the conflict of ideas, which ideas, having per- 
sisted, create the era of action. Let us now return 
to the great leader, who, having taken the oath to 
"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," 
will in the fulfilment of that oath demonstrate that 
he is the commanding personality in the period, 
even as Washington was in 1776 and 1787. 

1 Curry, The South, p. 187. 
13 



194 Washington and Lincoln 

First, as the Bible is closed, and he leaves the 
portico of the capitol, he journeys down Pennsyl- 
vania Avenue in company with the retiring Presi- 
dent and enters the White House. There is a story 
which has come down from the day, which, though 
not vouched for, is so in harmony with his known 
position that it might well be true. Washington's 
portrait, hanging on the wall of the Executive 
Mansion, in keeping with the occasion had been 
draped with the American flag. It is said that 
Lincoln, upon entering the room, walked over to 
the portrait, stood in silent meditation for some 
time, after which he was heard to repeat, as to 
himself, the words from his inaugural: "I hold in 
the contemplation of universal law and the Consti- 
tution, that the Union of these States is perpetual." 
Then with one of those rare gestures, awkward, 
but tremendously impressive, he swung his long 
arm out from the shoulder, extended the index 
finger of his big, bony hand, and pointing at the 
flag exclaimed in half -subdued tones, "Not one 
star on that blue field shall be blotted out." 
Only a few words. He had stated the argument 
at length on many occasions. With Marshall and 
Webster as text-books, he had taught the great 
truth of the Union now and for ever, one and 
inseparable. But now the time for argument has 



The Civil War Group of 1861 195 

passed. The storm is impending. As he takes 
up the awful load of government he can only pause, 
and, in the presence of the Father of his Country, 
respond in spirit to the toast of other days — 
"Another hoop for the barrel or more cement for 
the Union" — and answer, as the great leader in the 
presence of whose portrait he now is, "More 
cement for the Union." The old question of the 
lodgment of power. 

Second, let us go with him to the field of 
Gettysburg. It is November 19, 1863. The 
occasion is the dedication of a cemetery for the 
soldiers of the North who had fallen in the battle 
of the preceding July. As the brave ones from 
seventeen loyal States had given up their lives, it 
seemed fitting that, after the formal oration by 
Edward Everett, the dedication proper should be 
made by the President of the nation — and, as the 
invitation stated, accompanied with a few remarks. 
And so on the day appointed the great leader 
appears, draws from his pocket a scrap of brown 
paper, adjusts his glasses, and reads a few words — 
words which will live as long as man remembers. 

Before quoting the closing lines in this word 
cameo, engraved upon the heart of humanity, 
think for a moment of Lincoln in relation to 
Washington as regards government. 



196 Washington and Lincoln 

Notice, as you recall the writings of each, that 
whereas Washington rarely refers to the Declara- 
tion of Independence, and frequently to the Con- 
stitution, Lincoln less frequently refers to the 
Constitution, and more frequently to the Declara- 
tion of Independence. The distinct impression 
is made, as the utterances of Lincoln are stud- 
ied, that he lived in the atmosphere of 1776, 
rather than of 1787. This does not mean that 
1787, in his thought, contradicted 1776, but it 
does suggest that he thought more about the 
era that emphasised the freedom of man, than 
about the era that insisted upon the protection 
of property. 

There are a few words in the first inaugural, in 
which Lincoln seeks the origin of the Union back 
in the Articles of Association in 1774, and then 
traces the Union through the Declaration of 1 776, 
on through the Articles of Confederation in 1778, 
to the Constitution in 1787. The words are of 
interest, not because of their argumentative value, 
for they rather weaken than strengthen the ar- 
gument, but because they afford a glimpse into 
Lincoln's mind. In thought he lingered in the 
era of Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, rather than 
that of Rufus King and Alexander Hamilton. On 
Washington's Birthday in i86r in the Hall of 



The Civil War Group of 1861 197 

Independence, he said: "I can say in return, sirs, 
that all the political sentiments I entertain have 
been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw 
them, from the sentiments which originated in 
and were given to the world from this hall. I 
have never had a feeling, politically, that did 
not spring from the sentiments embodied in the 
Declaration of Independence." 1 

And so, on this autumn day in 1863, as he reads 
the few words from the scrap of paper, he naturally 
begins with the Declaration of Independence: 
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers 
brought forth on this continent, a new nation, 
conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposi- 
tion that ail men are created equal." Now read 
the closing words: "That we here highly resolve 
that these dead shall not have died in vain: that 
this nation under God shall have a new birth of 
freedom: and that government of the people, by 
the people, and for the people shall not perish 
from the earth. " Lincoln here stands with John 
Quincy Adams, and gives classic expression to 
that which the "old man eloquent" struggled for. 
He goes back of Washington in the Constitutional 
convention to the Revolutionary group in the 

1 Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, Nicolay and Hay Ed., 
vol. i., p. 690. 



198 Washington and Lincoln 

Declaration of Independence to find the source of 
power in government. 

Third, let us study Lincoln in the administration 
of government. As he assumed the responsibili- 
ties of office, seven States in the South were by 
resolution out of the Union. The evidence is 
clear that the intent and expectation of the South- 
ern leaders was to leave the Union in peace. The 
South did not believe the North would interfere 
with their going. The North did not believe the 
South would in fact go. But in this both the 
North and South were mistaken. 

In his inaugural address Lincoln said: "In your 
hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not 
mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The 
government will not assail you. You can have 
no conflict without being yourselves the aggres- 
sors. " And it is a matter of common history, 
how, after the inauguration, almost single-handed, 
he matched his leadership against the adroit 
Confederate leadership, and manoeuvred the 
South into a position in which it literally fulfilled 
his words, by firing on the flag at Sumter. 

There is no need to consider here the events that 
followed the attack on the fort in the harbour of 
Charleston, except as they show Lincoln's under- 
standing of the expression of power. It must be 



The Civil War Group of 1861 199 

admitted that the lofty ideal of power formulated 
in the Constitutional era is not found in this era. 
Lincoln does not apply power, as that something 
in government, which, expressed through law and 
enacted in the spirit of compromise, is made opera- 
tive by force, which usually is moral and some- 
times is physical. As will be seen later, Lincoln 
gave a noble revelation of power used in the spirit 
of compromise, though balanced by a use of moral 
and physical force, but he did not express the 
power through law in the full constitutional sense. 
On the contrary he carried executive action to an 
extreme hitherto unknown in our history. 

However, in order to do Lincoln justice, in his 
unique expression of power through executive acts, 
certain facts should be kept in mind. First, he dealt 
with a tremendous revolution, which had as its pur- 
pose the overthrow of government. Second, this 
being a composite empire, republican in form, the 
revolution meant of necessity a disarrangement or 
cessation of governmental functions in some parts. 
Third, in the Constitution, under which he was 
expected to act, there was no adequate provision 
for executive action in time of revolution. These 
are facts of profound significance and must not be 
forgotten when Lincoln's use of "war power" is 
interpreted. 



200 Washington and Lincoln 

He believed it to be his duty, because of these 
facts, to exceed, if necessary, the letter of the 
Constitution. In no other way could he be loyal 
to his oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the 
Constitution. " In 1787, owing to the "exigencies 
of the Union," Washington went beyond the 
wording in the call for a convention, and with 
others provided a "radical cure." Now Lincoln 
goes beyond the text of the Constitution, because 
the Constitution, which for him is the symbol of 
the Union, is in danger. His position is that it is 
wiser to save the Constitution and lose consistency 
than to keep consistency and lose the Constitution. 

This does not mean that he violated the Consti- 
tution, but rather that he applied the theory of 
implied powers to executive action in a time of 
revolution. Just as Marshall half a century before, 
owing to conditions unforeseen when the Constitu- 
tion was written, interpreted it in a way to meet 
those conditions, so now Lincoln, confronted by 
circumstances which the framers did not antici- 
pate, gave to himself, as President, power to meet 
new needs. To be sure, Marshall's interpretation 
was judicial, and therefore an interpretation of 
power through the law. Lincoln's interpretation 
was executive and therefore in a measure outside 
the law. For a time, it must be confessed, the 



The Civil War Group of 1861 201 

government became one not of law but of a man. 
It was a dangerous position to take, but perilous 
conditions create dangerous positions. And fortu- 
nately for the nation, Lincoln, who dared to be 
his own exponent of the law, was true to his con- 
ception of power as derived from the people, and 
in action was both cautious and determined. 

The three illustrations of this power as used 
through executive action are: First, the call for 
troops following the fall of Sumter. 1 Article I, 
Section 8, of the Constitution reads as follows: 
"To provide for the calling forth the militia to 
execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrec- 
tions, and repel invasions. " This clause is found 
in the article of the Constitution which defines 
the composition and enumerates the powers of the 
legislative branch of the government. And because 
of this fact, there can be no doubt that the founders 
of the government intended that this power should 
be exercised by Congress. But Congress was not 
in session when the blow at the Union was struck. 
It did not convene until almost three months 



1 Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. h\, pp. 34, 41. 
Lincoln issued this first call under authority of the Act of 1795. 
There was some doubt in his mind as to the constitutionality of 
his second call in May, 1861, for in his message to Congress 
of July 4, 1 86 1, he says: "These measures whether strictly legal 
or not, etc. " Ibid., p. 59. 



202 Washington and Lincoln 

later. Some one must act and Lincoln believed 
he was the one. 

Second, his suspension of the writ of habeas 
corpus. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln authorised 
General Scott and other officers under his com- 
mand to suspend the writ. 1 A few days later, 
attempting to act under the suspension in Balti- 
more, the order came before Chief Justice Taney, 
then in the city, who asserted that Lincoln had 
violated the Constitution. 2 This raised a legal 
question of far-reaching significance, which was 
discussed during the four years of the war. Article 
I, Section 9, of the Constitution reads: "The 
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not 
be suspended unless in cases of rebellion or invasion 
the public safety may require it. " The President 
defended his action in suspending the writ by 
calling attention to the fact that the clause in the 
Constitution does not specify who shall exercise 
the right. But as the clause, like the one on the 
militia, is in the first article of the Constitution, and 
among the enumerated powers of Congress, it is 
probable that the President was mistaken. 

The President's position was, however, unas- 
sailable, when, passing beyond the omission in the 

1 Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. ii., p. 39. 

2 Nicolay and Hay, A History, vol. iv., p. 175. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 203 

law, he said: "Are all the laws but one to go 
unexecuted, and the government itself to go to 
pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a 
case, I should consider my official oath broken, if 
I should allow the government to be overthrown, 
when I might think the disregarding the single 
law would preserve it." x The force of this is seen 
when it is realised that a rebellion might assume 
such proportions as to make impossible, for a time 
at least, the assembling of Congress. 

Third, his relation to slaves, which culminated 
in the Emancipation Proclamation. There is, of 
course, no mention of this in the Constitution. 
Here Lincoln was as extreme in action as in his 
suspension of the writ. In theory he carried his 
executive independence farther, for, while he ad- 
mitted the right of Congress to suspend the writ, 2 
he denied it the right to emancipate the slaves, and 
refused on this basis to sign the Reconstruction 
Bill of July, 1864. 3 Yet he claimed for himself 
the right to issue an emancipation proclamation 
to apply to the slaves in the States then in rebellion, 
and based this claim upon Article II, Section 2, 
of the Constitution which says: "The President 

1 Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, Nicolay and Hay Ed., 
vol. ii., pp. 59, 60. 

2 Ibid., vol. ii., p. 407. 3 Jbid, p. 545. 



204 Washington and Lincoln 

shall be commander in chief of the army and navy 
of the United States, and of the militia of the 
several States, when called into the actual service 
of the United States." When he acted on the 
question of emancipation, as will be seen later, he 
acted from military necessity. 

It should be said that Congress sustained Lin- 
coln in the use of power by executive action, when 
under normal conditions such power would be 
legislative, or as with emancipation, by constitu- 
tional amendment. But the sanction in each 
instance followed the act. Thus it may be said 
that Lincoln when confronted by the "exigencies 
of the Union," used the power of government, 
sometimes through the law, at times outside of its 
strict interpretation, yet always for the mainte- 
nance of the law. And in using the power through 
executive action, he was sustained by the legisla- 
tive branch of the government. 

With this understanding of Lincoln's attitude 
to the law as qualified by the fact of revolution, 
let us now consider how he used power in the 
spirit of compromise as balanced by force. Com- 
promise, while enriched by the depth of his 
humanitarian nature, was always based upon an 
utilitarian purpose, namely, to save the Union. 
By a sudden unforeseen change, the emphasis 



The Civil War Group of 1861 205 

changed from slavery and its extension in the 
territories to the preservation of the Union. In a 
deeper sense than he realised when he repeated the 
words, Lincoln's task was to "preserve, protect, 
and defend." This involved, among other things, 
the holding of the Border States in the Union and 
the reorganisation of government in those States 
which attempted to leave the Union. Practically, 
he was forced to admit that some States had gone 
out of the Union. Sometimes he acted upon the 
fact, and again upon the theory that the Union 
was indissoluble. But whether he acted upon one 
or the other, his controlling spirit was compromise, 
in so far as it did not interfere with his dominant 
purpose to save the Union. Or, better still, in 
order to save the Union, he saw the need of 
compromise. 

He believed that the maintenance of the Union 
depended upon holding Kentucky. He said: "I 
think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to 
lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we cannot 
hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These 
all against us, and the job on our hands is too large 
for us." 1 To accomplish this he gave two posi- 
tions in his cabinet to men from the Border States. 

1 Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, Nicolay and Hay Ed., 
vol. ii., 81. 



206 Washington and Lincoln 

It was further necessary to restrain the extreme 
anti-slavery sentiment, both among military lead- 
ers and civilians. His task was made the more 
difficult because of the unwarranted assumption of 
power by some of his generals, such as Fremont 
and Hunter, and by the unjust criticisms from 
such public leaders as Horace Greeley and James 
Russell Lowell. 

In the summer of 1861, Greeley wrote him that 
the country was convinced that he lacked the 
ability to meet the situation. ■ Later, Lowell ex- 
claimed, "How often must we save Kentucky 
and lose our self-respect." 2 But amid the 
blunders of his generals and the criticisms from 
his supposed followers, the great man never lost 
his poise and saved Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, 
and Delaware for the Union, and from these States, 
together with the loyal portion of Tennessee, 
threw 200,000 soldiers against the Confederacy. 

He also believed, that in the maintenance of the 
Union assistance could be rendered by a gradual 
resumption of the functions of government in the 
States then in rebellion. If, in dealing with the 
Border States, he acted upon the fact that some 
States had gone out of the Union, and other States 

1 Nicolay and Hay, A History, vol. iv., p. 365. 
1 Tarbell, Life of Lincoln, vol. ii., p. 65. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 207 

might follow, in dealing with Louisiana, Arkansas, 
and Virginia, he acted upon the theory that no 
State had gone out of the Union, and therefore 
government should be operative in every State. 
He based his action upon Article IV, Section 4, 
of the Constitution, which says: "The United 
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union 
a republican form of government, and shall pro- 
tect each of them against invasion. " He did this 
work by executive action, aided by the military, 
and for the most part without the support of 
Congress. He had little to work with, as seen in 
the loyal government of Virginia which met at 
Alexandria, and which he was forced to speak of 
as simply "a nucleus to add to." 1 But he saw 
what some others failed to see, namely, the pos- 
sibilities of larger things, and the basis for future 
action, when the war should have ended. And so 
he closed his last public speech, on April 10, 1865, 
by saying: "Concede that the new government of 
Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is 
to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by 
hatching the egg than by smashing it." 2 The 
leaders in Congress, after he was gone, nearly 
smashed the eggs. The splendid fowls were hatched 

1 Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, Nicolay and Hay Ed., 
vol. ii., p. 620. 3 Ibid., p. 675. 



208 Washington and Lincoln 

in the South, when, after a bitter experience, the 
nation returned to the spirit at least of Lincoln's 
reconstruction programme. 

As has been intimated, his underlying thought 
in the use of compromise was to weaken the 
armed resistance to the Union. The reconstructed 
governments, weak as they were, served as "back- 
fires" and proved exceedingly troublesome to the 
Confederate leaders. The Border States, whose 
populations were about equally divided as to 
secession, tilted now to one side, and now to the 
other, but finally, under the patient and skilful 
handling of Lincoln, settled in the Union. But 
along with this masterful display of compromise 
was the use of physical force. For this was stern 
war. It was a revolution, where physical force 
must be used, and Lincoln, with a relentless per- 
sistence that never ceased, hurled the armies of 
the loyal portion, like huge, round, smooth cannon- 
balls, against those in revolution. 

It is from this angle that his treatment of the 
slaves should be studied. There are four distinct 
and progressive positions taken by Lincoln, before 
the final position is taken in the Thirteenth Amend- 
ment: (i) Slaves coming within the Union lines 
are no longer the property of their former owners. 
(2) Slaves, as property of those in rebellion, come 



The Civil War Group of 1861 209 

into the possession of the United States apart 
from judicial procedure, when seized by the Union 
armies. (3) All slaves in the States in rebellion, 
excepting in certain portions of two States, are by 
executive proclamation free. (4) The slaves, thus 
freed by proclamation, may be armed as soldiers, 
and enlist for the preservation of the Union. l In 
taking these positions, and in the order named, 
Lincoln had in mind the fact that the slave popu- 
lation was an actual physical force, which might 
be used for the defence of the Union. In 1864, as 
he reviewed his own position he wrote : 

Any different policy in regard to the coloured man 
deprives us of his help, and that is more than we can 
bear. We cannot spare the hundred and forty or fifty 
thousand now serving us as soldiers, seamen, and 
labourers. This is not a question of sentiment or 
taste, but one of physical force, which may be meas- 
ured and estimated as horse power and steam power 
are measured and estimated. Keep it and you can 
save the Union. Throw it away and the Union goes 
with it. 2 

But with this appreciation of the slaves as an 

1 The provision for the arming of the freed slaves was not in 
the draft of the proclamation issued September 22, 1862. It 
was inserted in the final draft of January 1, 1863. See Nicolay 
and Hay, A History, vol. vi., chapters viii. and xi. 

a Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. 
ii., p. 564. 
14 



210 Washington and Lincoln 

asset in the struggle, was his unerring knowledge 
of the military resources of the loyal States, and 
his determination to use them to the utmost. 
From the moment that Sumter was fired upon, 
until Lee sheathed his sword at Appomattox, Lin- 
coln never wavered in his purpose to use physical 
force not only to defend the Union but to crush 
the rebellion. When McClellan was riding around 
the capitol, Lincoln said he would gladly hold 
his horse, if he would only win a battle. When 
some one criticised a personal weakness of Grant, 
his reply was: "But he can fight." When, later, 
negotiations were started with peace in view, 
his explicit instructions to the generals were to 
continue their operations on a war basis. 

Perhaps a single illustration will suffice. One 
morning in the summer of 1864, Lincoln enters the 
War Department. Stanton, the great Secretary, 
is still at work, for he seems to have done nothing 
else. Lincoln takes his accustomed seat by the 
operator's table. It is an awful hour, — the Wilder- 
ness with its carnage; Spottsylvania with its bloody 
angle; Cold Harbour with its slaughter. Grant is 
now at Petersburg to the south of Richmond. He 
had said that he would take Richmond if it took 
all summer. But summer had come and is more 
than half gone, and Richmond is not taken. The 



The Civil War Group of 1861 211 

North is growing weary of the awful struggle. 
The loss of life is appalling. The cry is going up 
that the price paid is too great. A coloured 
woman, Harriet Tubman, described the battle- 
field, and people grew pale. She said: "And then 
we saw the lightning and that was the guns. And 
then we heard the thunder and that was the big 
guns. And then we heard the rain falling and 
that was the blood falling. And then we reached 
out to gather in the craps, and it was dead bodies 
that we reaped. " * 

On this morning a message is handed to Lincoln 
from Grant, in which the great captain suggests 
slipping away from Petersburg and joining Sheri- 
dan in the Shenandoah Valley. And Lincoln 
immediately dictates a reply as follows: "Hold on 
with bulldog grip and chew and choke as much as 
possible." 2 Strange words from the gentle and 
tender President. The man who would leave his 
carriage in the roadway, and place in its nest a 
bird with a broken wing. He who would some- 
times disturb the strict discipline of the army 
because of his inability to withstand the plea of a 
mother for her boy who had slept at his post. It 

* Hart, Abolition of Slavery, p. 209. 

2 Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, Nicolay and Hay Ed., 
vol. ii., p. 563. 



212 - Washington and Lincoln 

is a reversal of the old myth of Pygmalion and 
Galatea. The warm-hearted, lovable, and mag- 
nanimous counsellor and friend turns into the 
cold bit of marble. And why? Because the 
fundamental law of the land is imperilled. 

Lincoln, then, in the administration of govern- 
ment answers the question of power by saying, 
it is expressed through law, qualified by extreme 
executive action, due to the fact of revolution, 
which power is used in the spirit of compromise, 
and made effective by moral and physical force. 1 

Let us return to the portico of the capitol build- 
ing as Lincoln delivers his second inaugural on 
March 4, 1865. On this day, had any in the vast 
throng been on the lookout for omens, they would 
have commented upon the fact that whereas the 
first inaugural was read from the western portico 
of the capitol, the second is now read from the 
eastern portico. 2 It is the East with its promise 

1 More space is given to the consideration of Lincoln's use of 
the "war power," in connection with the expression of power in 
government, than to the other phases of his work, because it is 
the most distinctive in relation to the problem of power. 

3 "Whilst the members were signing it, Doctor Franklin look- 
ing towards the President's chair, at the back of which a rising 
sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near 
him, that painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art 
a rising from a setting sun. I have, said he, often sat in the 
course of the session, and in the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears 
as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being 



The Civil War Group of 1861 213 

that is now faced. And what changes have taken 
place. In the four years, the dome of the building 
has been completed, and the bronze statue of 
Freedom is no longer on the ground but on the 
pinnacle, buttressed by the XHIth Amendment to 
the Constitution, which has passed both branches 
of Congress. In the inaugural procession, for the 
first time in the nation's history, a battalion of 
coloured troops and several civic organisations of 
the same race are found. The conscientious and 
able, but mistaken, Taney is gone, and in his place, 
to administer the oath of office, is Salmon P. Chase, 
an abolitionist, who had worked through political 
organisation. 

Lincoln, still the commanding personality of 
the group, is changed in appearance. His sec- 
retary, who later became a great Secretary of 
State, referring to these closing days, says: 

He continued always the same kindly, genial, and 
cordial spirit he had been at first, but the boisterous 
laugh became less frequent year by year ; the eye grew 
veiled by constant meditation on momentous subjects ; 
the air of reserve and detachment from his surround- 
ings increased. He aged with great rapidity. 



able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length 
I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting 
sun." — Madison's Journal, Sept. 17, 1787, vol. ii., p. 397. 



214 Washington and Lincoln 

He refers to two life-masks, the one made in i860 
and the other about this time, and says of the later : 

The other is so sad and peaceful in its infinite re- 
pose that the famous sculptor, Augustus Saint-Gau- 
dens, insisted when he first saw it that it was a death- 
mask. The lines are set, as if the living face, like the 
copy, had been in bronze ; the nose is thin and length- 
ened by the emaciation of the cheeks ; the mouth is 
fixed like that of an archaic statue ; a look as of one 
to whom sorrow and care had done their worst without 
victory is on all the features ; the whole expression is 
of unspeakable sadness and all-sufficing strength. 
Yet the peace is not the dreadful peace of death; it is 
the peace that passeth understanding. l 

The lover of his country as he examines these 
masks, now in the national museum at the capitol, 
catches a glimpse of the sacred and tragic meaning 
of leadership in the time of peril. This noble spirit 
is only fifty-six years of age as measured by the 
calendar, but he is a very old man as measured by 
experience. 

Lincoln is a changed man in thought. A 
comparison of the first with the second inaugural 
reveals this. In the first it is the statesman with 
clear conceptions of power in government who 
speaks ; in the second it is the man with profound 
moral convictions who speaks. The first deals 

1 Century Magazine, November, 1890. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 215 

with the conditions under which war may be 
averted. The second drops thought as a lead 
into the mysterious depths, and takes a sounding 
of compensation, as it relates to the underlying 
cause of the war, namely, slavery. And it is 
Lincoln's attitude to slavery, as seen in the second 
inaugural, that registers the change. 

There is no advance or change in his conception 
of power lodged, derived, or expressed in govern- 
ment. But the change in his conception of power 
abused in government is unmistakable. 

In the first inaugural, he says, "I have no pur- 
pose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the 
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. 
I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have 
no inclination to do so." 1 When he read the 
second inaugural he had interfered with slavery 
in the States, and had approved an amendment 
to the Constitution for ever prohibiting slavery in 
the States. 

'February 28, 1861, the House, and March 3d, the Senate, 
passed an amendment to the Constitution which read as follows : 
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will 
authorise or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere 
within any State with the domestic institutions thereof, including 
that of persons held to labour or service by the laws of said 
State. " It is this amendment which Lincoln referred to in his 
first inaugural. It was never submitted to the States, owing to 
the outbreak of the war. 



216 Washington and Lincoln 

In comparing Lincoln's position in 1861 with 
that of 1865, it should, however, be said that the 
change registered is one of method rather than 
conviction. There is nothing to show that in 
personal conviction he ever changed on the ques- 
tion of slavery. From early manhood until death 
his conception was as clear as a hound's tooth is 
clean. He saw the moral meaning of slavery 
when as a young man he visited New Orleans. 
His consistent position through all the years was 
that, "if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. "* 

He believed, however, that slavery under the 
Constitution was a domestic institution of the 
States and not to be interfered with by the general 
government. Inasmuch as some doubted this, 
he was willing to advocate the adoption of an 
amendment making this clear. But if slavery- 
could not be interfered with in the older States, it 
could be prohibited in the national domain and 
in the newer States carved from this domain. He 
believed, and this is the important fact, that by 
prohibiting slavery in the newer sections, slavery- 
would ultimately disappear in the older sections 
of the Union. He reversed the position taken 
in 1820, when men said that slavery being as a 
cloud in the sky of a summer's day, the scattering 

1 Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. ii., p. 508. 



The Civil War Group of 1861 217 

of the cloud would cause it to disappear. He said, 
restrict slavery, as a forest fire is restricted by 
clearing around it, and it will burn itself out. 

Then came the war. In seeking to maintain the 
government during the war he used the slave as a 
military asset. In order to use him to the fullest 
extent, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. 
Having taken the shackle from the slave he 
refused to again replace it. He then moved for- 
ward to the only tenable position, that slavery 
having caused a rebellion for the overthrow of 
government, and the slave having been used for 
the defence of government, the slave should be 
for ever free. Hence the need of an amendment 
to the Constitution for ever prohibiting slavery. 
This having passed Congress, he can say in his 
second inaugural, in words that suggest a Hebrew 
prophet : 

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray that this 
mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet 
if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled 
up by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of 
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of 
blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another 
drawn by the sword, as it was said, three thousand 
years ago, so still it must be said, The judgments of 
the Lord are true and righteous altogether. 

The question of the abuse in government is 



218 Washington and Lincoln 

answered. The moral justification for the war is 
the overthrow of slavery. Lincoln began on this 
question about where Washington ended. He 
ended where Garrison began. 1 There is nothing 
more for the great leader to do. His work is 
ended. He has trudged across the prairie; climbed 
the foot-hills ; has struggled up the mountain-side ; 
he is almost at the end of the journey and is very 
tired; in a few days he will reach the top of the 
mountain of fame, tarry there for a brief moment 
and be silhouetted forever against the sky-line of 
history. Then of him it shall be said, as of one 
of old — "He was not, for God took him." 

To summarise the thought of this chapter: 
The Civil War group with Abraham Lincoln as its 
commanding personality had as its work the main- 
tenance of government. This involved the mighty 
problem of power in government. In solving this 
problem amid the clash, crash, and flash of war, 
the great questions of the meaning of this power 
were raised. In considering these questions, a 
new and final answer, under the strain of war, was 
given to that of the abuse of power. 

Viewed as a governmental struggle and connect- 

1 The fact that an amendment to the Constitution forever 
prohibiting slavery was thought necessary, was a historic justifica- 
tion of Garrison's position that the "Constitution was a covenant 
with death." 



The Civil War Group of 1861 219 

ing the era with the preceding eras, the statement 
is this: In 1776, an advanced conception of politi- 
cal freedom contended against the attempt to 
extend the system of imperial control, which was 
under a reactionary influence in English history. 
This protest was successful, and following this, in 
1787, a written constitution was adopted which 
created a composite empire, republican in form. 
In 1 830, under the stress of conditions which those 
who formulated the Constitution could not have 
foreseen, the composite empire was defined, and 
the definitions given went beyond the formulations 
made. In 1861, the stupendous question was 
whether the Constitution, as formulated in 1787, 
could be maintained, by an application of the 
definitions of 1830. The "more perfect Union," 
which was formed under the leadership of Wash- 
ington, was maintained under the leadership of 
Lincoln. And in maintaining the Union, slavery 
was abolished that a still more perfect Union 
might exist. 

As the era closes with the departure of the 
great leader, it is early afternoon in the nation's 
life. The air is clear; the clouds are dispersed; the 
winds have died away. There are white puffs 
floating in a clear blue sky and the sun is gently 
shining. But all the streams are swollen and the 



220 Washington and Lincoln 

corn in the field is down ; gullies are in the roads ; 
and here and there uprooted trees show a fierce 
storm's wrath. The rain had fallen in torrents ; the 
winds blowing a gale had done their cruel work, 
while thunder rumbled and lightning flashed. Now 
the time for repair and restoration has come. ■ 

1 "The first great struggle between the pro-slavery and anti- 
slavery parties began in the Federal convention, and it resulted 
in the first two of the long series of compromises by which the 
irrepressible conflict was postponed until the North had waxed 
strong enough to confront the dreaded spectre of secession, and, 
summoning all its energies in one stupendous effort, exorcise it 
forever. From this moment down to 1865, we shall continu- 
ally be made to realise how the American people had entered into 
the shadow of the coming Civil War before they had fairly 
emerged from that of the Revolution ; and as we pass from scene 
to scene of the solemn story, we shall learn how to be forever 
grateful for the sudden and final clearing of the air wrought by that 
frightful storm which men not yet old can still so well remember. " 
Fiske, Critical Period of American History, p. 256. 



The Relation 

It is now possible, having examined the work in 
government during five periods, to say two things 
about the relation between Washington and Lin- 
coln. First, the relation is accentuated by the 
similarity of the work done in the periods of which 
they were the commanding personalities. In each 
period, the central problem has been that of power 
in government. The same questions as to the 
meaning of this power have been raised in attempt- 
ing to solve this problem. Second, the relation is 
modified by the difference in conditions amid 
which the problem has appeared. This difference 
in conditions has made each period distinctive. 
Continuity and development are seen in the history, 
and similarity and difference shown in the relation. 

But the relation between Washington and Lin- 
coln is something closer than that found in a 
comparison of their work. For emerging from the 
work, or seen through it, are the workmen. And 
even as the work is compared, so also may the 
workmen be compared. That is, through similar- 

221 



222 Washington and Lincoln 

ity and difference in the qualities of leadership 
seen in the workmen, may the relation between 
them be further accentuated and modified. Let 
us begin by noting the differences which mod- 
ify and then pass on to the similarities which 
accentuate the relation between them. 

It must be admitted that Lincoln was superior 
to Washington in the work of government. In 
saying this, it is well to remember that the national 
career of Lincoln was distinctly civil; that of 
Washington, military and civil. Washington 
may be seen in these pages presiding over the 
convention of 1787, but he needs the background 
of battlefields. The lines of the heroic figure of 
Lincoln are civil even though it appears in the 
midst of military tumult. Washington was by 
choice a country gentleman, through necessity a 
general, and from a sense of duty a statesman. 
Lincoln was by training a lawyer, from desire a 
political leader, and, in the realisation of a worthy 
ambition, a president. Because of this, it is not 
surprising that in certain respects he was superior 
to Washington in the work of government. 

This superiority was seen in his mental grasp of 
the philosophy of government. J The thoughts on 

1 The student who cares to go into the speculative side of our 
governmental development, should read A. C. McLaughlin's 



The Relation 223 

political science were as morsels of appetising food 
for the brain. He smacked his mental lips in 
anticipation of an argument on public affairs. He 
was a "man of propositions. " He believed in the 
political application of the scriptural words, 
"Come now let us reason together. " 

With Washington there is a total absence of the 
argumentative habit in his thinking. A syllogism 
in logic was as distasteful to him as a noisy demo- 
crat without property. He probably never, save 
from a sense of duty, abandoned a fox hunt for a 
political discussion. He kept his head well bal- 
anced on his shoulders, and was superb in the 
exercise of judgment. If the definition of an 
educated man be one able to suspend judgment in 
the presence of exciting ideas, then he was splen- 
didly educated. An example of this is his attitude 
on the question of a national bank as Jefferson and 
Hamilton presented their arguments. 

Lincoln, however, had more than power to sus- 
pend judgment, for he had the mental initiative 
which led him to search for arguments which 
should guide judgment. Washington sent others 
in search of arguments, and used their findings as 
the basis for his own decisions. Lincoln went with 

exhaustive monograph entitled, "Social Compacts and Constitu- 
tional Construction," in the American Historical Review, vol. iv., 
pp. 367-390- 



224 Washington and Lincoln 

those about him in search of arguments and often 
found other arguments upon which to base a deci- 
sion. In the critical moments of his administra- 
tion, when some pronouncement was to be given 
forth, the reasoning it contained always passed 
through the alembic of his own mind. He was 
a profound thinker on the science of government. 

Another difference to be noted is in Lincoln's 
use of men for the ends of government. In a 
democracy, government is a pyramid, with the 
mass of men at the base, and the leaders of men 
at the apex. Lincoln's marvellous skill was as 
apparent at the apex as at the base. His superior- 
ity over Washington in this respect was not due 
to the fact that the first leader failed and he suc- 
ceeded, but to the fact that he so signally suc- 
ceeded. He ranks with Jefferson and Jackson in 
his discernment and appreciation of the shifting 
and diverse currents of public opinion, and easily 
surpasses them in his handling of strong men for 
the purposes of government. 

He was nominated by a convention which some 
thought had been swept off its feet, and elected by a 
popular vote, almost a million less than a majority. 
In the judgment of many thoughtful men, the 
wheels of political machinery had slipped a cog in 
elevating him to the presidency. When he entered 



The Relation 225 

the White House, distrust of his ability and right 
to lead was widespread. But with tact, patience, 
and firmness, he gained such control that, in a 
noble sense, he was able to utilise a Chase, Seward, 
and Stanton. The record of his relation with 
these men is more interesting and revealing than 
most records of great men with all men. So com- 
plete was his mastery of the situation that, when 
his work ended, to many others than Walt Whit- 
man he was "My captain, oh my captain!" 

The contrast between the great leaders, in the 
control of men, especially of the leaders among 
men, cannot be pushed too far. For it must be 
remembered that conditions under which the first 
President came into leadership were not such as to 
give an equal opportunity. National life was an 
experiment. The ship of state was given the official 
test fresh from the stays, and the test was made on 
the ebb-tide of loyalty to the nation. Reaction 
had set in from the high patriotism of the early 
Revolutionary days. The officers, whom Washing- 
ton chose as his subordinates, formed a motley 
group, for he tried the unique experiment of 
selecting a non-partisan Cabinet, and, doing this, 
sacrificed efficiency for patriotism. It may be 
doubted whether two men ever came together in 
the affairs of government who were a more com- 



226 Washington and Lincoln 

plete antithesis than Jefferson and Hamilton. 
They were indeed the square peg and the round 
hole. 

With Lincoln, conditions were different. He 
had two generations of public life to draw upon, 
and, during those years, ideals of public service 
had been created. He also came to his task amid 
the stress and strain of a terrible war, one effect of 
which was to quicken the sense of loyalty and 
unite all patriotic elements in the support of 
government. There were discordant elements for 
him to pacify, guide, and utilise, yet he did not 
have two such masterful and mutually antagon- 
istic personalities as the domineering, yet brilliant, 
Federalist, and the radical, yet adroit, Democrat. 
But after making the most generous allowance 
for the change in conditions, it still remains true 
that the later leader displayed superior skill in 
weighing the elements of human nature and dis- 
entangling the cross purposes of men. 

Again, Lincoln was a master in the use of lang- 
uage for the expression of thoughts on govern- 
ment. In a representative government language 
assumes a supreme significance. The leader who 
is skilful in his use of language works back to the 
headwaters of the stream, for in influencing the 
people he reaches the source of power. Sometimes 



The Relation 227 

the language is spoken, but more often it is written. 
In either use of language, Lincoln was superior to 
Washington. There is a famous description given 
by Senator Maclay, of the first President making 
his inaugural address. He says: "This great man 
was agitated and embarrassed more than he was 
by levelling cannon or pointed musket. He 
trembled, and several times could scarce make out 
to read, though it must be supposed he read it 
often before." 1 On the other hand, Lincoln was 
a master of popular assemblies. He came into 
national prominence because of the debates with 
Douglas. He won the confidence of many leaders 
in the East as the result of the Cooper Union 
speech. He touched the heart and reached the 
mind of the loyal portions of the North, through 
his series of addresses on his way to the capitol in 
1 861. There is a remarkable bit of description by 
one who saw him in the celebrated debate on the 
prairie. He says: "Abraham Lincoln . . . rose 
from his seat, stretched his long bony limbs 
upward, as if to get them into working order, and 
stood like some solitary pine on a lonely summit, 
very tall, very dark, very gaunt, and very rugged, 
his swarthy features stamped with a sad serenity, 
and the instant he began to speak the ungainly 

1 Writings of Washington, Ford Ed., vol. xi., p. 383, note. 



228 Washington and Lincoln 

mouth lost its heaviness, the half-listless eyes 
attained a wondrous power, and the people stood 
bewildered and breathless under the natural magic 
of the strangest, most original personality known 
to the English-speaking world since Robert Burns. 
There were moments when he seemed all legs and 
feet, and again he appeared all head and neck ; yet 
every look of the deep-set eyes, every movement 
of the prominent jaw, every wave of the hard 
gripping hand, produced an impression, and before 
he had spoken twenty minutes the conviction took 
possession of thousands that here was the pro- 
phetic man of the present and the political saviour 
of the future." 1 

The same superiority is revealed by Lincoln 
when writing as when speaking on questions of 
government. The best of the writings which have 
come down with the name of the first President, 
such as the War Correspondence and the Farewell 
Address, are supposed to have been, in literary 
expression, the work of Hamilton. 2 The fact that 
Washington turned to the ablest writer of his day 

1 Grierson's, The Valley of Shadows, p. 198. 

2 As regards the War Correspondence there has never been any 
doubt. Hamilton's work in the Farewell Address has been 
doubted: Oliver, p. 351, asserts that he was its author. Allan 
McLane Hamilton, the distinguished grandson, discusses at 
some length the question, and seems to establish the authorship. 
See his Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, pp. 84-89. 



The Relation 229 

for help shows that, while he recognised his own 
limitations, he also appreciated the importance of 
language in his work of leadership. 

Not so with Lincoln. When the time came for 
him to lead in the work of maintaining the Union, 
he had no equal among his contemporaries in the 
use of language as a medium for touching and 
forming public opinion. A careful study of his 
letters and documents justifies the assertion that, 
in the use of language for great ends, he stands 
without a rival among the statesmen of the world. 

An analysis of these writings reveals four charac- 
teristics of importance. First, there is an utter 
absence of literary dilettanteism. Quaint, homely, 
and original, the language often is, but never is it 
affected. Frequently he wrote, with the thought 
of creating an impression by what he wrote; but 
not a sentence is found, formed by the pen, as a 
cherry stone is whittled into shape by the pen- 
knife. The pressure upon him was too great, and 
his mind too serious for such trifling. 

Second, his mind is never subordinate to his 
style. This is a severe test to apply to the writings 
of one whose style is matchless. The writers of 
the first rank who can stand it are easily counted. 
Carlyle has written pages as brilliant as any known 
to modern literature; Macaulay has chapters 



230 Washington and Lincoln 

among the most fascinating in history. But com- 
pare a page or chapter of one of these writers with 
the lines in one of Lincoln's great documents, and 
the distinct impression is made upon the mind that 
the writers across the sea are more skilful in 
language than robust in thought, while, with the 
great American, the tough fibre of his mind is felt 
in every line he writes. The words he uses are 
to his thoughts as the polish is to the grains of the 
wood. And as the grains show more clearly as 
the wood takes the polish, so his thoughts on 
government stand forth with more strength as they 
find superb expression in words. His language is 
never in excess of his thinking. 

Third, through his style there is the constant 
play of imagination. Public opinion in a republic 
is reached not alone, or even primarily, through 
the reason, but through the imagination. Lincoln 
understood this, and as a result his great writings 
are enriched by this element. There is nothing 
light or fanciful in his play upon the imagination. 
His finest passages do not suggest the lights and 
shadows upon the meadows, but rather the sun in 
the western sky flooding the rugged mountain- 
side, for underneath the glow of imagination lies 
the solid reasoning. 

Fourth, his language is exact, never making 



The Relation 231 

him say more or less than he intends. There is no 
over-refining in words, no excess of qualifying 
propositions, no tendency to reach his destination 
by a circuitous verbal route. As another has 
aptly phrased it: "He is one of the few of whom it 
may be said, as Dante said of himself, ' I have often 
made words say things that they did not wish to 
say; but words have never made me say things 
that I did not wish to say. ' " l 

This matchless skill in the use of language was 
a growth and the result of painstaking effort. 
While this growth, of course, began in childhood 
as he wrote with charcoal upon a wooden shovel, 
it also may be traced during the four tumultuous 
years of his leadership. A comparison of the two 
inaugural addresses, as they came from his hand, 
will show this. The earlier one is liberally blue- 
pencilled. The later one is free from the disturbing 
marks of the pencil. Nowhere in great literature 
is there a more perfect illustration of Quintilian's 
dictum, that "the way to write well is not to 
write quickly, but if you take the trouble to write 
well, in time you can write as quickly as you 
like. " In the first inaugural he struggles slowly, 
and, when through with the struggle, submits his 
product to the schoolmaster of Springfield, who 

1 Bliss Perry, Address before Brooklyn Institute, 19 11. 



232 Washington and Lincoln 

discovers a "pesky split-infinitive. Ml Three years 
later he journeys to the battlefield, and on the way 
writes the Gettysburg Address, the words of which 
are like pebbles of the brook, washed round and 
smooth by the flow of waters. He has taken time 
to write well and at last is able to write supremely 
well with little time. 

Having noted the negative aspect of the relation, 
that is, the absence in one of certain qualities of 
leadership found in the other, let us now consider 
the positive aspect of the relation, that is, the 
possession by both of certain other qualities or 
traits that pertain to leadership of a high order. 

First among these traits is that of insistence 
upon the concrete. The objective world was the 
tremendous reality for them both. Realism was 
the atmosphere in which they dwelt. The French 
scholar Renan is reported to have said to his sister 
Henrietta: "Ah, I thank God that he has placed 
my happiness in thinking and feeling." 2 These 
leaders were men of deep emotions and lofty 
thoughts, but they would never have made such 

1 The first inaugural was submitted to others, notably W. H. 
Seward. The changes he suggested and which were adopted are 
noted in Nicolay and Hay, A History, vol. iii., chap. xxi. The 
document was also submitted to S. A. Douglas, although Nicolay 
and Hay make no mention of this. See Allen Johnson's Stephen 
A. Douglas, pp. 463, 464. 

2 North American Review, April, 1907. 



The Relation 233 

a. remark. For them life's satisfaction was found, 
not in the thought or feeling, but in projecting 
these into the sphere of action. With each the 
will was central in life. 

And this insistence gives a clue to the secret of 
their unchallenged influence. They were not orig- 
inal thinkers, for neither offered any contribution 
to the theory of government. James Wilson was 
a more original thinker than Washington, and the 
distinctive ideas that took shape in the era of 
Lincoln may be traced to others. x And they were 
not the creators of the movements of their respect- 
ive eras. The Constitutional movement of 1787 
was greater than Washington and the Civil War 
movement than Lincoln. At the grave of Rous- 
seau it was repeated that he said of the philo- 
sophers: "They have produced light; I will produce 
a movement." These great leaders neither pro- 
duced the light nor the movement. And yet they 
were the commanding personalities in their era. 

The explanation for this is in the fact that they 
were tremendous in action. Without a Washing- 

1 J. Q. Adams, in a speech in Congress in 1842 said, "When a 
country is invaded, and two hostile armies are set in martial 
array, the commanders of both armies have power to emancipate 
all the slaves in the invaded territory. " Cong' I Globe, 27th Cong. 
1st sess., part 1, p. 429. Here is Lincoln's idea of the slave as a 
war asset. 



234 Washington and Lincoln 

ton, the work of Pelatiah Webster, Hamilton, 
Madison, and Wilson would have failed. After 
John Quincy Adams, Webster, and Clay had 
struggled in vain, Lincoln came to the front, and 
amid conditions he did not create, he succeeded. 
These great leaders caught the light that emanated 
from the minds of original thinkers, and mastered 
movements fraught with untold weal or woe, only 
to carry them forward to successful terminations. 
Their task was to make real in the affairs of 
government the thoughts of men. In this practi- 
cal sense, Washington made actual the formation 
of the Union. In a no less practical sense, Lincoln 
made effective the maintenance of the Union. 
In leadership there is a strength of action which 
transcends originality of thinking. When the 
crisis is on, the supreme need is for men who can 
project thought into deed, and make concrete 
ideas that are big. These leaders were transcend- 
ent in their greatness because they acted. 

Action in leadership to be effective is ac- 
companied by another trait, that of prudence. 
And this trait both Washington and Lincoln pos- 
sessed in a marked degree. For in making con- 
crete the thoughts on government which won their 
assent, they were controlled by this spirit. It is 
not easy to define prudence in a man of big parts. 



The Relation 235 

It is something more than caution and never the 
opposite of daring. It is finer than timidity and 
often an expression of courage. It as certainly 
belongs to statesmanship of the first rank as 
weight to substance. Edmund Burke says it is 
the finest trait of statesmanship. An analysis of 
prudence at its best indicates the presence of 
common sense. Robert Walpole was fond of say- 
ing that "a great prime minister was one who had 
more common sense than anyone else." 1 Tenny- 
son, in measuring the substantial character of 
Wellington over against the dartling genius of 
Napoleon, has a fine line descriptive of his country- 
man, to the effect that he was "rich in saving 
common sense." 2 

But among the component parts of prudence is 
a sense of responsibility. Perhaps prudence may 
be described as common sense ladened with re- 
sponsibility. Because of this the statesman moves 
slowly. The crisis for him is the moment when 
the huge ship of state is moving with reduced 
speed and under perfect control through the wind- 
ing channel. Smaller boats move more speedily 
and make the dock with less difficulty. But they 
carry less cargo and draw only a little water. 

1 Lecky, History of England in 18th Century, vol. v., p. 260. 

2 Tennyson's "Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington." 



236 Washington and Lincoln 

So with these great leaders. Their prudence 
which led them to move slowly was an expression 
of reserve strength. The safety of the mighty 
ship of state was at stake. One leader commanded 
the craft fresh from the stays as it slid into the 
water; the other, as it felt its way through the 
tortuous channel with ugly rocks near by. Each 
was called into command when prudence was 
required. For this they were severely criticised. 
Some mistook their slowness for hesitation. Others, 
in the grip of single ideas for immediately reform- 
ing the world, marvelled that progress was not 
more rapid. But later, these critics were forced to 
admit that they were mistaken. The refusal to 
give the bells for more speed was then understood 
to be the result of a deeper insight into conditions, 
and a more complete mastery of forces. They 
were strong enough to resist hasty action and 
brave enough to take needful action. 

Lincoln gave a fine statement of this when, 
speaking to Governor Morgan at a critical moment, 
he said: "We are like whalers who have been on a 
long chase: we have at last got the harpoon into 
the monster but we must look how we steer, or with 
one flop of his tail he will send us all into eternity. " x 

1 Nicolay and Hay, A History, vol. x., p. 74. Paine in The 
Crisis, referring to Howe's troops in New Jersey, during the 



The Relation 237 

But if prudence is the spirit which slows down 
the action because of the dangers involved, expedi- 
ency is the quality of mind which guides the 
action amid the dangers. And this was another 
trait seen in the leadership of Washington and 
Lincoln. Expediency is as necessary as prudence 
in order that action in the supreme crisis may be 
effective. For the one who is controlled by prud- 
ence without being guided by expediency illus- 
trates the old saying that "he who hesitates is 
lost. " And the one who is guided by expediency 
without being controlled by prudence illustrates 
an equally old saying that "fools rush in where 
angels fear to tread." The pages of history are 
sprinkled with the failures of leaders who lacked 
one or the other quality. 

And by expediency is meant simply the inter- 
pretation of experience by reason. The leader 
who is guided by expediency acts in the light of 
the experience as interpreted. The huge ship 
moves slowly and therefore is in action. Its 

winter of 1777, says, "Like a wounded, disabled whale, they 
want only room and time to die in; and though in the agony of 
their exit, it may be unsafe to live within the flapping of their 
tail, yet every hour shortens their date, and lessens their power of 
mischief." Writings of Paine, Conway Ed., vol. i., p. 198. Is 
there here a suggestion that Lincoln was familiar with the writings 
of Paine? The writer does not recall another nautical illustration 
used by Lincoln. 



238 Washington and Lincoln 

speed is carefully measured, and this is prudence. 
But it moves slowly, with speed reduced, because 
the officer in command knows the channel, depth 
of water, danger of collision, power of momentum, 
dock to be reached, and this is expediency. And 
so it was with these great leaders. They pos- 
sessed ideals of government, but they were toned 
on the shore of the real. 

Because of the place which expediency occupied 
in their working philosophies of life, there are no 
enigmas. The prophetic instinct, in the usual 
meaning of the term, had no place in their public 
work. No one claims this quality for Washington. 
His giant form moved too slowly through vast 
stretches. Things never became vital for him 
until they took shape in the immediate foreground. 
But this has been claimed for Lincoln. It is said 
that his was a mystical nature, and the phantom 
ship of his dreams is mentioned. And further, his 
famous words about the "house divided against 
itself " l are quoted. But these words when placed 
with his others on slavery are seen to be excep- 
tional. They need to be placed along with such 
words, for example, as those spoken in the debate 
with Douglas, to the effect that "he did not suppose 
that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction 

1 Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. i., p. 240. 



The Relation 239 

[referring to slavery] would occur in less than a 
hundred years at least. "■ 

Lincoln believed his task was to save the Union 
and not abolish slavery, even as Washington, in 
1775, believed his task was to protest against 
unjust taxation without going the length of 
independence. But the Revolutionary leader in 
1776 found that the one involved the other, and 
the Civil War leader in 1862 found that, to save 
the Union, slavery must be abolished. 

However, expediency as a guide is not alien to 
the exercise of prophecy. In fact, used in the 
masterful way that Washington and Lincoln used 
it, expediency becomes the handmaid of prophecy 
in the larger sense. For then the past is inter- 
preted, in the light of the present, for the welfare 
of the future. They may have lacked the strange 
gleam which illumines the details ahead, as the 
lightning on a dark night the rocks and trees of 
the valley. The claim cannot be made for Wash- 

1 Ibid., p. 408. These words about "ultimate extinction," were 
spoken to break the force of his words about "the divided house." 
Lincoln's speech at Springfield, 111., June 16, 1858, was his one 
most unfortunate utterance. It contained the words about "the 
divided house," and also the conspiracy of " Stephen, Franklin, 
Roger, and James." Douglas at once saw the opportunity and 
forced Lincoln to take a defensive attitude for some time. And 
it should be said to the credit of Douglas that Lincoln never 
offered any evidence to support his charge of conspiracy. 



240 Washington and Lincoln 

ington as for Sam Adams that he saw the end of 
the Revolution from the beginning. It cannot be 
claimed for Lincoln that he saw as far ahead on 
slavery as did William Lloyd Garrison. But if 
they lacked this strange gleam, they certainly 
possessed the discernment which enabled them to 
measure the forces of to-day by the conditions of 
yesterday. And the forces of to-day they saw 
reaching forth into the possibilities of to-morrow. 
This is prophecy in its most robust form. They 
are embodiments in history of the poet's words: 

It is not wholly so to him who looks 
In steadiness; who hath among least things 
An under-sense of greatest; sees the parts 
As parts, but with a feeling of the whole. 1 

Guided by expediency, the stages in the develop- 
ment of each leader may be traced. Neither 
could have applied to his work the words which 
Napoleon spoke to Gourgaud at St. Helena, con- 
cerning his work in war, when he said: "War is a 
strange art. I have fought sixty battles, and I 
assure you that I have learned nothing from all of 
them that I did not know in the first. Look at 
Caesar! he fights in the first battle as in the last. " a 

1 Wordsworth, The Prelude, Book vii. 
1 Rosebery, The Last Phase, p. 210. 



The Relation 241 

The American leaders learned by experience, be- 
cause guided by expediency. 

Curiously, with expediency as a guide, the 
growth of each was the reverse of the other. The 
first leader, though an American gentleman with 
English traditions of law and order, was in 
the Revolutionary days mildly radical, and in the 
Constitutional days, strongly conservative. The 
man who commanded the army, and listened in 
1776 while standing on the site of the present City 
Hall in New Yc rk to the reading of the Declaration 
of Independence, is not the same man in his con- 
ceptions of government as the man who presided 
over the convention in the city of Philadelphia 
during the summer days of 1787. In the earlier 
period the emphasis was upon freedom, and in the 
later upon law. 

The reverse was true of Lincoln. On the 
slavery question, as regards its political implica- 
tions, he was a conservative who became a radical. 
The evidence for this is in a comparison of his 
public utterances in 1861 with those of 1865. 
Standing in the western portico of the capitol 
building about to take the oath, in the earlier 
period, he emphasises what the government should 
not do about slavery in the States. Standing in 
the eastern portico, in the later period, and about 
id 



242 Washington and Lincoln 

to take the oath for the second time, he emphasises 
what the government shall do about slavery. 

Though each changed, the factors in the pro- 
cess which wrought the change are easily seen. 
This is a fact of prime importance in seeking an 
explanation of their work in government. There 
is found in the career of each no break with his 
past. In this respect they differ from many great 
leaders in government. For example, Gladstone 
began his work a conservative and ended a liberal. 
Yet it is not possible to explain the change by 
saying, that he was guided by expediency, and, 
therefore, in the light of changing conditions, he 
changed. The change in his position was due to 
a mental revolution. At eighty- two he said, "I 
was brought up to distrust and dislike liberty, I 
learned to believe in it. " T But not so with these 
leaders. Lincoln, writing in 1864, describes Wash- 
ington as well as himself when he says: "I claim 
not to have controlled events, but confess plainly 
that events have controlled me. Now at the end 
of three years' struggle, the nation's condition is 
not what either party or any man desired or 
expected. " 2 And this simply means that in action 
they were guided by expediency. 

1 Morley, Life of Gladstone, vol. iii., p. 475. 

a Works of Lincoln, Nicolay and Hay Ed., vol. ii. f p. 509. 



The Relation 243 

Another trait of character possessed by Wash- 
ington and Lincoln was that of essential goodness. 
In a study of leadership in government, it may 
seem a little unusual to call attention to a quality 
so commonplace, even though fundamental, as 
goodness. Historians evidently think so, for they 
either assume this goodness, or give to it only a 
passing notice. However, the writer is convinced 
that goodness explains in a large measure the com- 
manding influence of these leaders. And because 
of this, the relation between them cannot be traced 
unless this quality is considered. Therefore, a 
more than passing notice will be taken of it. x 

Where the word "great" is used of the few 
exceptional leaders in government it has either of 
two meanings. It may mean the possession of 
some traits so in excess of those possessed by the 
ordinary man, as to cause all men to look with 
fear or admiration upon the one possessing them. 
Or it may mean the possession of traits in such 
perfect proportion, that the one possessing them, 
because he is normal, is great. The great man, in 

1 "There is no great share of probity necessary to support a 
monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, 
and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and 
maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is 
necessary, namely, virtue." — Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 
Book hi., Section 3. 



244 Washington and Lincoln 

the first use of the word, startles the world. In 
the second use of the word, he wins the world. 

The great man, in the first sense, lacks propor- 
tion. He may insist upon the concrete, be con- 
trolled by prudence, and accept expediency as a 
guide, but if he have only these, he will be as the 
huge ship without ballast. The great man, in the 
second use of the word, who is normal, and there- 
fore supremely great because normal, adds to these 
three traits a fourth, namely, goodness. And this 
goodness acts as a steadying influence, which saves 
for the world results which otherwise might be lost. 

A glance at leadership in history shows how true 
this is. The line of cleavage in great leadership 
is primarily moral. It is somewhat disturbing to 
discover that the question of goodness can be 
asked about some great men only with a smile. 
It can be asked about Frederick the Great, Napo- 
leon, Robert Walpole, Disraeli, and Bismarck, only 
with a smile. It can be asked about Hamilton, 
Jefferson, Franklin, Webster, and Clay, only with a 
smile. But no one thinks of asking the question 
about Washington or Lincoln, for such a question 
is almost an insult to their memories. Their good- 
ness is so apparent and inevitable that the ques- 
tion becomes superfluous. The fact is one of the 
silent yet potent assumptions of history. 



The Relation 245 

Granting that these leaders were essentially 
good men, how did this goodness reveal itself in 
their work on government ? Our answer is, it was 
shown in an elemental simplicity. There is a 
form of simplicity sometimes affected by leaders 
which is only on the surface. Washington, who 
happened to wear silver buckles on his shoes, 
doubtless was often amused at the carpet slippers 
worn by Jefferson. And probably Lincoln chuck- 
led to himself, when he found that his great oppo- 
nent Douglas had dropped the last letter from his 
name, in response to the more primitive conditions 
of society. 1 This was only harmless ostentation 
in simplified form. 

And there is a genuine simplicity which has to 
do with the incidentals of external life. In this 
respect Washington was conventional and Lincoln 
was careless. The biographers think they have 
made quite a discovery if they find some intimate 
experience in which Washington forgot or Lincoln 
remembered the conventions in manners or speech. 
Of course this contrast must not be pushed too far, 
but it exists. 

However, there is a simplicity that is elemental, 
and has to do with the roots of character. In this 
sense, both these leaders were simple men. Some 

1 Allen Johnson's, Stephen A . Douglas, p. 22. 



246 Washington and Lincoln 

one has said of Fenelon: "Half of him would be a 
great man and stand out more clearly as a great 
man, than does the whole, because it would be 
simpler." 1 And these words, so pregnant with 
meaning, explain the failure of some great men to 
attain the rank of supreme greatness. Sometimes 
this lack of simplicity is moral, again it is mental. 
Alexander Hamilton in sheer intellectual strength 
exerted in behalf of government is without a peer 
in our history. But it is this half of him that 
stands out more clearly as a great man. From a 
different standpoint, the career of Gladstone illus- 
trates these words. He was a "great Christian," 
with a wide horizon, a deep passion for righteous- 
ness, and superb powers in action. But it is 
certain that he will just miss the rank of the 
supremely great, because of the absence at times 
of intellectual simplicity. Not so, however, with 
the two great American leaders. Their goodness 
is always a perfect blend of mental and moral 
simplicity. They are never infinitely great in one 
relation, and inflnitesimalry small in another. 

Another answer is, there was an absolute sincer- 
ity in their goodness. This would follow from 
what has been said about their simplicity. It was 

1 Quoted by Morley and applied to Gladstone. See Morley's 
Life of Gladstone, vol. i., p. 184. 



The Relation 247 

the absence of intellectual simplicity which gave 
some excuse for the charge that Gladstone was not 
sincere in the absolute sense. It was the absence 
of moral simplicity in Hamilton which involved 
an appearance for a time unlike the reality, which 
justified the suspicion of his enemies. But not so 
with Washington and Lincoln. Being elemental 
in their simplicity they are sincere in all their 
relations. 

In the days when Rome was building its marble 
palaces, as the story goes, much trouble was 
experienced with dishonest contractors who used 
defective marble. A block would come from the 
quarry chipped. Knowing that it would rest well 
up in the wall, the temptation was strong to hide 
the defect and to use instead of reject the block. 
And so white wax the colour of the marble was 
used with such skill that the owner of the com- 
pleted building, upon receiving it from the con- 
tractor, failed to detect it. However, in time the 
washing of the rains, the beating of the winds, and 
the flashing of the sunlight upon the wall would 
darken the wax, and cause the wall to appear 
blotched. In order to protect themselves against 
this imposition the nobles came together, and 
formed a sort of "gentleman's agreement," by 
which all contracts drawn for marble buildings 



248 Washington and Lincoln 

should in the future contain the clause, sine 
cere — "without wax;" no fraud or imposition, but 
truth to standard. And so with these great 
leaders. The revelation of themselves in their 
work is as the piece of marble, massive in size, 
lines straight, corners square, and the surface true. 

A further answer is, that goodness meant for 
them unselfish devotion. This is but another way 
of saying that they were patriotic. For patriot- 
ism in its virile sense is an expression of goodness. 
In a country whose institutions are democratic 
there is a tendency in the direction of self -conscious- 
ness which leads its citizens to think more of what 
their country owes them than what they owe their 
country. The citizen who is patriotic in the finer 
sense reverses the order and thinks more of what 
he owes his country. 

A thinker who commands a wide reading has 
said: "In brief the people who have more rights 
than duties have gained a notable and distin- 
guished ethical position in our modern world. The 
selfish we had always with us. But the divine 
right to be selfish was never more ingeniously 
defended in the name of the loftiest spiritual dig- 
nity than it is sometimes defended and illustrated 
to-day." 1 These are disturbing words, but quite 

1 Josiah Royce, Loyalty, p. 68. 



The Relation 249 

as applicable to the days of Washington and 
Lincoln, as to the days since. And the veneration 
felt for these leaders is due in no small measure 
to the fact, that each had more duties than rights 
in a generation in which men had more rights than 
duties. 

Self-interest was made subordinate when Wash- 
ington emerged from his retirement at Mt. Vernon 
to preside over the convention in 1787. He had 
repaired his broken fortune and was again in 
affluent circumstances. Fame, as he believed, had 
done her utmost for him. There is not wanting 
evidence that he was fearful lest his fame might 
suffer, should he assume leadership in civil affairs. 
But in the States he discovered an undue emphasis 
upon rights, and so laying aside personal interests 
he came forward to stand for duties. 

The same emphasis is found in the career of 
Lincoln. Read carefully his debate with Douglas, 
and the impression is made that while he may not 
have been superior to his opponent in the adroit 
handling of the points in the argument, yet he 
possessed a deeper and finer sense of moral duty. 
Compare, also, his leadership with that of the 
masterful Southern leadership. And again 
the impression is made, that however sincere the 
Southern leaders were in the arguments advanced, 



250 Washington and Lincoln 

their goodness just missed its finest expression, 
because of an undue emphasis upon rights. 

"Whether it be right" is a nobler question for 
the leader in a democracy, than the other question, 
"What are our rights?" The one question does 
not necessarily contradict the other question. 
But only as the leader passes from the "rights" to 
the "right?" does he pass from the realm of self 
interest, into the loftier region of pure patriotism. 
And Washington and Lincoln did this. 

Still another answer is that goodness for them 
was suffused with a tender spirit of charity. The 
moral philosophers state that charity, or better 
still, benevolence, is the basis of goodness. How- 
ever, it may be asked, what has charity to do with 
a leader's work in government? There are two 
answers: One is, that through charity or the 
kindly spirit the leader broadens his conception 
of the meaning of government. Isaac Barrow, the 
profound writer of the 17th century, says: "Char- 
ity rendereth a man truly great, enlarging his 
mind into a vast circumference, and to a capacity 
nearly infinite; so that by it a general care doth 
reach all things, by an universal affection doth 
embrace and grace the world. " The other answer 
is, that through charity, the leader establishes 
himself in the confidences of the people. Jeremy 



The Relation 251 

Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher, in no danger 
of undue sentimentalism, says: "If you would 
gain mankind, the best way is to appear to love 
them, and the best way of appearing to love them, 
is to love them in reality." Washington and 
Lincoln may never have heard the words of 
Barrow or Bentham, but they practised them. 
And the student cannot go far in the study of 
their lives without feeling the glow of their kindly 
feeling for man. He may not feel it as readily in 
the life of the earlier leader, for he is farther 
removed and by nature was more reserved. But 
behind the somewhat haughty exterior beat a 
heart, big with love for man. Lincoln expressed 
this component part in the element of goodness 
when he said in the tender and beautiful words 
spoken as the storm died away: "With malice 
toward none ; with charity for all ; with firmness in 
the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us 
strive on to finish the work we are in ; to bind up 
the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall 
have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his 
orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish 
a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with 
all nations." And the same spirit of charity is 
found in Washington's Farewell Address, although 
the language is more conventional and less felici- 



252 Washington and Lincoln 

tous. "Father of his country," and "Father 
Abraham" are terms that mean something. 

One more answer is that goodness as revealed 
in the work of these great leaders in government 
meant a deep faith in God. If the roots of their 
goodness were simplicity, sincerity, unselfishness, 
and charity, the soil in which these roots grew, was 
a deep faith in God. Reserve in the expression of 
his confidence of divine assistance becomes the 
leader of the nation, in the hour of its struggle. 
For then, the nation easily permits its conception 
of providence to degenerate into an unreasonable 
fatalism. Napoleon, watching the play of ele- 
mental forces in the thunder-storm on the eve of 
Waterloo exclaimed, "We are in accord!" These 
words were really an expression of egotism gone 
to seed. Victor Hugo in his famous description 
says, that "it had seemed to him that destiny, for 
which he had made an appointment for a certain 
day upon the field of Waterloo, was punctual." 1 
However, destiny failed to keep the appointment. 
The faith of the Americans was far removed from 
such folly. 

But, if they never were the victims of a con- 
suming egotism neither did they reduce life to a 
mere rule of conduct. Jefferson's scrap-book con- 

1 Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, Part II., Book i., Chap. 7. 



The Relation 253 

taining his "precious morsel of ethics," 1 made by 
bringing together only the statements of Jesus in 
the Four Gospels that bear on conduct, would have 
had little interest for either Washington or Lin- 
coln. Goodness for them was more than precepts 
for correct living. It is evident that in their 
thought morality was to religion as the bones are 
to a living body. The bones of morality they had 
— well formed, closely knit, and sound. For there 
are no two great leaders of history whose lives, as 
regards personal and public conduct, more suc- 
cessfully invite searching criticism. But in the 
supreme crisis of his life, as each faced the "exigen- 
cies of the Union, " he passed from morality to 
religion. He probed beneath the surface of con- 
duct and found faith. It will never be known to 
what extent the earlier leader, who went to the 
House of Prayer, or the later leader, who "read 
the story of Gethsemane on his knees" 2 was 
actually given strength. Neither will it ever be 
known how far reaching was the influence of this 
genuine faith in God as it was witnessed by the 

1 Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, 
p. 16. 

2 Tarbell, Life of Lincoln, vol. i., p. 406. "I have read upon 
my knees the story of Gethsemane, where the Son of God prayed 
in vain that the cup of bitterness might pass from Him. I am in 
the garden of Gethsemane now, and my cup of bitterness is full 
and overflowing." 



254 Washington and Lincoln 

people. Certainly the student lacks imagination, 
who can turn the pages of their recorded acts and 
thoughts, without rinding this element of faith, 
which for the sake of historic accuracy cannot be 
ignored. 

The word goodness then, as a quality inherent 
in the leadership of these great men, meant sim- 
plicity, sincerity, unselfishness, charity, and faith. 
It is as impossible to think of their work apart 
from goodness as thus defined, as to think of 
colour without atmosphere. And more than this, 
after ample allowance has been made for their 
other qualities, the one that dominates, or rather 
shines through them, as sunlight through the trees 
of a forest, is this commonplace quality of essential 
goodness. 

And now having noted the qualities, which give 
to the leadership of each a four-square efficiency, 
there remains one more quality, that for the 
purpose of this study is fundamental, namely, the 
possession by each of an imperial ideal. And this 
ideal was also an expression of goodness. This 
does not mean that those who lacked this imperial 
vision, and saw the parts rather than the whole, 
were not good. But it does mean that this ideal 
so mastered the thinking of these leaders, that it 
became a distinct manifestation of their moral 



The Relation 255 

natures. It was for the other, even as for the 
one, "the ever favourite object of my heart." 
And in this lies the real secret of the relation 
between them. For had they lacked this imperial 
ideal, even though they possessed the other quali- 
ties, the relation could not be established. 

It is not known when or how this imperial ideal 
of government came to them. Napoleon tells us 
that one day on which in reading Bossuet's Dis- 
course on Universal History, he read of Caesar, 
Alexander, and the succession of empires, the veil 
of the temple was rent and he beheld the move- 
ment of the gods. And from that time on, in his 
campaigns in Egypt, Syria, and Germany, the 
vision never left him. 1 Neither Washington nor 
Lincoln has left any records of the conditions under 
which this splendid ideal of government came to 
them. Probably neither was ever conscious of 
the rending of a veil or the movement of gods. 
Their lives were too normal to afford much place 
for 

The flashes struck from midnights; 
The fire flames noon days kindle. 2 

Perhaps the only answer is, that being cast in the 
imperial moulds of such minds, the imperial ideal 

1 Rosebery, Napoleon, The Last Phase, p. 176. 
1 Browning, Cristina. 



256 Washington and Lincoln 

simply filled the minds. For nature can never be 
counted out in explaining great men. But it is 
known that the earlier leader was under the spell 
of the splendid vision when it was needed for the 
creation of the Union, and the later leader when it 
was needed for the maintenance of the Union. 
The one emerged from a war to form, and the 
other entered a war to preserve the Union. And 
neither was ever disloyal to his vision. 

The imagination kindles as one is seen presiding 
over a convention that writes the Constitution for 
a composite empire. The great man says little, 
perhaps he has little to say. But in his very 
personality he is the embodiment of something 
imperial. Nothing small could be done by a 
group which he dominated. And the same is true 
of the other leader. The reader, as he turns the 
pages of their recorded thoughts, feels the uplift 
of the imperial, as a traveller, drawing near the 
ocean, catches the flavour of salt air. 

But what was the imperial ideal which they 
saw? It certainly was something more than land 
and people. Other leaders in their eras saw these 
things and missed the imperial ideal. It was the 
form of government which they saw over the 
people dwelling on the land. They saw a govern- 
ment with power lodged at the centre, distinct 



The Relation 257 

from and in addition to power in the parts; this 
power was expressed in law, derived from the 
people, who only could give sanction to the law, 
because alone the source of the power. 

Beyond this it is not possible to go in establishing 
the relation. For while they were alike in their 
vision of imperial form, they differed somewhat in 
their ideas of the content of power. 

And the explanation of this, as has been sug- 
gested in the preceding chapters, is not difficult to 
find. The one was an aristocrat and the other a 
democrat. This familiar contrast may be pushed 
too far, although it is impossible to ignore it, in a 
study of the work of these leaders in government. 
How far training is an influence which determines 
the attitude of a man in relation to the affairs of 
government, so that he becomes an aristocrat or a 
democrat, cannot be known. This attitude is 
certainly the result of something more than exter- 
nal circumstances. Washington was not an aristo- 
crat because he owned a plantation and kept 
slaves. Jefferson had these things and was a 
democrat. Lincoln was not a democrat because 
he buried his axe in a tree or wore a linen duster. 
Roger Sherman was a shoemaker and became an 
aristocrat in government. There was something 

in the temper of the mind of each, which led the 
17 



258 Washington and Lincoln 

one to become an aristocrat and the other a 
democrat. 

They both subscribed to the political creed, that 
power as expressed in law is derived from the 
people. Yet the words did not mean exactly the 
same to each. Washington saw the people in the 
law; Lincoln saw the law in the people. The first 
leader believed in the divine right of government 
as derived from the people. The second leader 
believed in the divine right of the people expressed 
in government. The earlier leader never said, as 
did the later, that he owed all his political ideas 
to the Declaration of Independence. 

But in addition to the temper of mind as an 
explanation of the difference in their understanding 
of power, there is a further and more important 
explanation, namely the fact of historic develop- 
ment. Lincoln was farther down the stream of 
the nation's life, and so the distance between the 
banks was greater, and the channel deeper. Power 
in government was as actual for the one as the 
other, but in 1861 there was more of it. 

The expression of power of necessity meant 
more for the later leader. Power finds its expres- 
sion in law, and the symbol of the law in the 
imperial sense is in the Federal Court. In 1787, 
such a court was an innovation, and needed time 



The Relation 259 

in order to win its way. The first Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court resigned because, as he 
wrote John Adams on January 2, 1801, "It 
would not obtain the energy, weight, and 
dignity, which was essential to its affording due 
support to the national government." 1 But fol- 
lowing Jay, who seems momentarily to have lost 
hope, came Marshall whose mighty work reaching 
through thirty-four years consisted in establishing 
the supremacy of Federal law within the entire 
circle of its jurisdiction. The after-glow of Mar- 
shall, along with Story and Taney, was a positive 
asset at the disposal of Lincoln. 

The source of power had a deeper meaning 
for the later leader. The recognition of power as 
derived from the people carries with it the right 
of the people to control the power. But it required 
the Democratic movement under the leadership of 
Jefferson, and later of Jackson, to make this clear. 
And along with this, although enunciated by 
thinkers having none too much confidence in the 
people, was the political truth of the indivisibility 
of power. Gleams of this truth emanated from 
the mind of James Wilson in 1787. But the pre- 
vailing view, and doubtless the one Washington 
accepted, was that the power was divisible between 

1 Pellew, Life of Jay, p. 339. 



260 Washington and Lincoln 

the Union formed by the States, and the States 
forming the Union. 

Finally as to the abuse of power under govern- 
ment. The later leader appeared under con- 
ditions which made imperative another answer. 
The earlier leader disbelieved in slavery and 
tolerated it. The later leader began by tolerating 
it, and ended by leading the movement for its 
abolition. The water in the stream of the nation's 
life had, by 1861, gained such volume and headway 
that the awful obstruction in the channel was 
swept away. 

As the study closes, it is in order to inquire 
whether by the method adopted and under the 
conditions laid down in the introductory chap- 
ter, the relation between Washington and Lincoln 
has been explained. The method adopted called 
for an examination of work rather than a descrip- 
tion of workmen. The conditions laid down were 
three : The work selected for examination should be 
commensurate with the greatness of the workmen, 
that thus there might be given a revelation of their 
ample resources. The work examined as done by 
each should be sufficiently alike to make possible 
a comparison. And the law of historic develop- 
ment should be recognised. 

In following the method, five periods of work in 



The Relation 261 

government have been examined. Viewed as a 
whole, this work may be said to consist of building 
the arch of empire. In the period of 1 763, through 
experiment, the ground was cleared. In the period 
of 1776 the excavations were made and the piers 
laid. In 1787, upon these piers the voussoirs 
forming the span were placed. In 1830, the vous- 
soirs were pointed up. In 1861, the arch as a 
whole was buttressed. When the arch was built, 
Washington was the leader. Later, when the 
arch was reinforced, Lincoln was the leader. 
Surely the work examined was commensurate 
with the greatness of the workmen. 

And certainly the work was sufficiently alike to 
make possible a comparison. For in addition to 
the fact that each was concerned with the arch, 
both had to deal with the problem of the keystone 
of power placed in the arch. And further, the 
likeness is emphasised by the fact that in dealing 
with the keystone these workmen had to answer 
the same questions as to its composition. 

The time element has been reckoned with. 
For while each has worked upon the keystone in 
the arch, yet the nature of the work has differed, 
owing to the change in conditions. It was Wash- 
ington's task to reject the British and hoist the 
American stone into place. It was Lincoln's task 



262 Washington and Lincoln 

to hold in place the stone as hoisted in 1787, and 
measured in 1830. Here is historic development. 

It may be said then, that an examination of 
work in government, under the conditions laid 
down, shows that the relation between Washington 
and Lincoln is accentuated by similarity, and mod- 
ified by difference. The similarity is seen in the 
fact that each had to do with the arch and the 
keystone. The difference in the fact, that one 
laid the arch including the keystone, and the 
other strengthened the arch and held the keystone 
in place. 

But how was the work done by each? The 
examination made has not only disclosed the 
nature of the work, but revealed the skill of the 
workmen. And as the skill of each is compared 
with the other, it is seen that the relation between 
them is further accentuated or modified through 
similarity and difference. The relation is modi- 
fied by the fact that Lincoln was superior to 
Washington in certain respects. He had a stronger 
mental grip on the philosophy of government. 
He excelled in the use of language for the expres- 
sion of his thoughts on government. He handled 
men more adroitly for the ends of government. 
The relation is accentuated by the possession in 
common of certain fundamental traits, inherent in 



The Relation 263 

supremely great leadership. They were men of 
action who insisted upon the concrete. Govern- 
ment for them was not in books but in organised 
society. The spirit of prudence controlled them 
in making concrete their thoughts. In thus mak- 
ing concrete under the control of prudence, they 
were guided by expediency. And to these three 
qualities was added a fourth, namely, the steadying 
influence of an essential goodness. Possessing 
these qualities in such splendid proportion they 
were lured on by the magnificent ideal of an 
imperial Union to which they were ever loyal. 
Therefore, Washington and Lincoln are related in 
government as they work on the arch of empire — 
the one building, the other maintaining — the one 
placing the keystone of power in the arch, the 
other struggling to keep it there. And on this 
keystone an inscription, subscribed to by both: 
"A more perfect Union, existing for the people, 
because having power expressed through law, and 
coming from the people." 



Index 



Abolitionism, appeal to con- 
science, 1 66; use of petitions, 
168 ff.; political organisa- 
tion, 177; influence in the 
South, 186; at second inau- 
guration, 213 

Adams, John, member of Re- 
volutionary group, 44; Brain- 
tree letters, 45, 87, note; 
writings compared with 
Washington's, 78; absent in 
1787, 86; change in views of 
government, 117; uneasy at 
inauguration, 129; appoints 
Marshall, 149 

Adams, John Quincy, member 
of National group, 132; his 
career, 167 ff.; contest in 
Congress, 168, 178; quotes 
James Wilson, 171; related 
to Lincoln, 197, 234; slave 
as war asset, 233, note 

Adams, Samuel, member of 
Revolutionary group, 44; 
appearance at Continental 
Congress, 49 ; Washington 
uneasy about him, 78; absent 
in 1787, 87; lingers in re- 
gion of freedom, 92 ; accepts 
Constitution, 114; his head- 
quarters, 164; relation to 
Lincoln, 196; a prophet, 
240 

Albany, the conference of, 19 
ff. 

American Insurance vs. Can- 
ters, 150 

Ames, Fisher, description of 
Washington, 131, note 



Ames, Herman V., documents, 
148, note 

Annapolis, meeting at, 84, 90 

Appomattox, 210 

Arkansas, 207 

Arkwright, Richard, 140 

Articles of Association, 196 

Articles of Confederation, first 
constitution, 96; contribu- 
tion to government, 97; 
national domain, 97; absence 
of power, 103; compared 
with Constitution, 113; origi- 
nal draft and slavery, 122 
ff. 



B 



Bacon, Francis, 4 

Barrows, Isaac, 251 

Bates, Edward, Inaugural 
group, 175 

Bell, John, vote in i860, 189 

Bell, Senator, remark to Web- 
ster, 153 

Benjamin, J. P., Southern 
leader, 188 

Bentham, Jeremy, 251 

Benton, Thomas H., Inaugural 
group, 132 

Bismarck, 244 

Blackstone, theory of divine 
right, 39; read in colonies, 
69 ; exposition of Great Char- 
ter, 70 

Blair, Montgomery, inaugural 
group, 175 

Bolingbroke, 68 

Boone, Daniel, 134 

Border States, Inaugural 
group, 175; attitude on 



265 



266 



Index 



Border States — Continued 
slavery, 1 87 ; Lincoln's recog- 
nition of them, 205 ff.; 
soldiers in the Northern army 
206 

Boston, repressive measures, 
36; little army about, 47; 
Washington's interest, 65, 
85; Washington visits it as 
President, 107; abolitionism, 
164 

Boucher, Jonathan, conversa- 
tion with Washington, 15 

Braintree letters, 45, 87, note 

Breckinridge, John C, Inau- 
gural group, 173; vote in 
i860, 189 

British Empire, its constitu- 
tion, 7, 94; conditions 
which created the empire, 8, 
15 ff.; fact of empire recog- 
nised in colonies, 12; colonial 
policies, 1 7 ff . ; constitutional 
struggle, 24 ff.; contest with 
colonies an incident, 41 

Browning, Robert, 255 

Bryce, James, state constitu- 
tions, 1 01, note 

Burke, Edmund, member of 
Parliamentary group, 27; 
expression of power, 35; 
description of colonies, 35; 
conciliation, 36 ff.; resolu- 
tion on reform, 68 ff.; refers 
to Blacks tone, 70; on pru- 
dence, 235 



Calhoun, John C, member of 
National group, 133; expres- 
sion of power, 158 ff.; his 
Exposition and Hayne, 159; 
Virginia Resolutions, 160; 
responds to toast, 161, note; 
debates with Webster, 169, 
178, 187; frames argument 
for secession, 190, 193 

Calvin, John, political freedom, 

7i 

Camden, Lord, member of 



Parliamentary group, 26; 
taxation and representation, 
32 ff.; expression of power, 
35; language compared with 
Washington's, 81 

Carlyle, Thomas, description 
of Webster, 156, note; Fred- 
erick the Great and Lincoln, 
178; style compared with 
Lincoln's, 229 

Carroll, Charles, railway to the 
West, 139 

Carteret, John, 68 

Cartwright, Edmund, 140 

Charleston, Jackson's sugges- 
tion, 161 ; attack on Sumter, 
198 

Charlestown, 37 

Chase, Salmon P., Inaugural 
group, 176; administers oath 
to Lincoln, 213; member of 
Lincoln's Cabinet, 225 

Chesterfield, Earl of, 68 

Civil War era, compared with 
other eras, 9, 177, 180, 184, 
196, 197, 219, 261; historic 
tableaux, 173 ff.; change in 
atmosphere, 177; definition 
gives way to action, 178 ff., 
187 ff., 193; territorial expan- 
sion, 182; slavery a sectional 
influence, 185; centrifugal 
and centripetal tendencies, 
187 ff.; election of 1861, 189; 
Confederacy formed, 1 89 ; 
arguments of the sections, 
190 ff. ; national domain, 193 ; 
fact of revolution and the 
Constitution, 199 ff.; abuse 
of power, 215; summary of 
era, 218; the aftermath, 219; 
arch of empire buttressed, 
262 

Clay, Henry, member of Na- 
tional group, 132; expression 
of power, 158 ff. ; compromise 
of 1833, 162; failure of 
compromise, 178; compro- 
mise of 1850, 181, 184; rela- 
tion to Lincoln, 234; ques- 
tion of goodness, 244 



Index 



267 



Clive, Robert, conquering in 

India, 16 
Cohens vs. Virginia, 116, 157, 

188 

Cold Harbour, 210 

Colonies, their credentials, 12 
ff.; military defence, 19 ff.; 
contributions to home gov- 
ernment, 22; influence of 
Treaty of Paris, 22 ff., effect 
of Stamp Act, 24, 35 ; repres- 
sive measures, 36; armed 
resistance, 37; Turgot's com- 
ment, 41; formal separation, 
42 ; legislatures co-ordinate 
in power, 51; against legis- 
lation without representa- 
tion, 52; defective in art of 
compromise, 52; related to 
empire through Crown, 56; 
conditions in the colonies, 

Confederacy, the, its leaders 
188, 198; its formation, 189; 
its argument, 190; Lincoln's 
back-fire, 208 

Congress, formation of Sen- 
ate, 108, 115, 1I 9'< R - H - 
Lee's criticism of lower 
House, 119; Washington's 
views about lower House, 
120; assembling of Congress 
in 1789, 128 ff.; selection of 
President, 143; struggle with 
the States, 148, 159; Tariff 
Acts, 159 ff., 162; rights of 
petition, 168 ff.; war power 
and Constitution, 201 ff. ; 
right to emancipate the 
slaves, 203; Lincoln sus- 
tained, 204; reconstruction, 
207; passes XHIth Amend- 
ment, 213; a proposed 
amendment, 215, note 

Connecticut, protest against 
Federal authority, 148 

Constitution, the, the room in 
which written, 7; tributes of 
De Tocqueville and Glad- 
stone, 94; Articles of Confed- 
eration, 96; national domain, 



97; State constitutions 98 
ff.; omission of Bill of 
Rights, 100; lodgment of 
power, 106; central clause, 
107; compromise, 107; 
slavery, 108, 121 ff., 203, 216; 
physical force, 1 1 1 ; the pre- 
amble, ii2ff., 143, 171, 176; 
interpreted by the Feder- 
alist, 116; a conservative 
document, 118; compared 
with State constitutions, 118 
ff. ; commerce clause, 138; 
its Amendments, 144, 146, 
208, 213, 215, note; centrip- 
etal tendency and its adop- 
tion, 145; reserved or im- 
plied powers, 146 if.; final 
interpretation, 147 ff., 155 
ff.; remark of Gouverneur 
Morris, 151 ; right of petition 
170; Lincoln's use in writing 
first inaugural, 181; impe- 
rial control, 187; no provision 
for revolution, 199; calling 
out militia, 201; suspension 
of writ of Habeas Corpus, 
202; republican form of 
government, 207 

Constitutional era, compared 
with other eras, 9, 115, 121, 
130, 133, 180, 219, 261; un- 
rest in the States, 85 ff.; the 
leaders, 86 ff.; successful 
termination of the war, 95; 
experiments in government 
before 1787, 95 ff.; central 
problem, 102 ff.; answers 
given to the problem 103 
ff.; property end of govern- 
ment, 115, 169; product of 
the era, 130 ff., 219; fran- 
chise and land, 143; centri- 
petal tendency, 145; arch 
of empire built, 261 

Constitutions, State, idea of 
written, borrowed, 98; Bill 
of Rights borrowed, 98 ff.; 
differed from English, 99; 
aspects that interested 
Washington, 100 ff.; dis- 



268 



Index 



Constitution — Continued 
tinctive feature of Revolu- 
tionary era, 101 

Cook, James, exploration and 
empire, 16 

Cumberland Road, 137 

D 

Dante, use of words, 231 

Dartmouth Case, 150 

Davis, Jefferson, Southern 
leader, 188 

Declaration of Independence, 
where written, 7; entry in 
Journal, 42; formal state- 
ment of separation, 42; 
mood of those signing, 42 if. ; 
Franklin not asked to write 
it, 43; signatures at end of 
document, 44 ff.; framed 
with bayonets, 48 ; dominant 
note, 50, 56; not a formal 
statement of political philo- 
sophy, 50; criticises King, 50; 
co-ordinate powers of colo- 
nial legislatures, 52; sugges- 
tion of compromise, 53 ; right 
to use force, 55; George the 
Third, the abuse of power, 
55 ff.; colonies related to 
empire through the Crown, 
56; summary, 56; culmina- 
ting effect of causes, 57; an 
assertion in favour of con- 
federation, 65; written under 
instructions from the people, 
74; and the Constitution, 
113; Washington ordered it 
read, 241; Lincoln's in- 
debtedness, 196, 258 

Declaratory Act, meaning of 
its introduction, 25; referred 
to by Pownall, 35; a com- 
promise, 36; assertion of 
power, 51 

Delaware, 206 

De Tocqueville, tribute to 
Constitution, 94; national 
domain, 98, note; estimate 
of leaders, 133, note 



Dickinson, John, did not sign 
Declaration, 46; a conserva- 
tive in convention, 120; 
prepared draft of Articles 
of Confederation, 122 

Disraeli, Benjamin, question 
of goodness, 244 

District of Columbus, 169 

Dixon, Senator, listening to 
Webster, 154 

Donald, Alexander, letter to 
Jefferson, 120 

Douglass, Frederick, question 
asked by Garrison, 165 

Douglas, S. A., at inauguration 
of Lincoln, 173; vote as 
Presidential candidate, 189; 
debate with Lincoln, 227; 
reads inaugural address, 232, 
note; charge of conspiracy, 
239, note; simplicity, 245 

Dred Scott Decision, 174, 184 

Dulany, Daniel, his argument 
used by Pitt, 34, 163; op- 
posed Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, 77 



E 



East Florida, 135 

Emancipation Proclamation, 
Lincoln writes it, 3, 217; 
denied Congress authority 
to issue, 203 ff. ; six steps 
leading up to, 208 ff. 

Emerson, R. W., quotes Mon- 
taigne, 9 

Erie Canal, 137 

Europe, origin of its nations, 
7; conception of power, 39; 
commerce in the States, 104; 

Everett, Edward, oration at 
Gettysburg, 195 



Federalist, The, physical force, 
112; its authors, 116; 
praised by Marshall, 116; 
overvalued as history, 116; 
compared with Madison's 



Index 



269 



Federalist, The — Continued 
Journal, 117; a republican 
form of government and 
territory, 136, 139; final 
authority in government, 
147; strong influence for 
adoption of Constitution, 

163 

Fenelon, moral and mental 
simplicity, 246 

Fiske, John, slavery and gov- 
ernment, 220 

Foote, Senator, 154, note 

Force Bill, 162 

Fox, Charles James, 68 

France, Treaty of Paris, 16, 23; 
its revolution compared with 
American, 69; its Declara- 
tion of Rights, 71; its philo- 
sophers and written constitu- 
tion, 98 

Franklin, Benjamin, why hedid 
not write the Declaration, 
43, note; signs the Declara- 
tion, 45; contrasted with 
Ned Rutledge, 49; story of 
the hatter, 53 ff.; moral life, 
68, 244; writings compared 
with Washington's, 78; mem- 
ber of Constitutional con- 
vention, 86; his experience, 
89; illustration of the table, 
109; on slavery, 122; com- 
ment on the painting, 212, 
note 

Frederick the Great, indirect 
ally of England, 16; tribute 
to Pitt, 25; Carlyle's de- 
scription, 178; question of 
goodness, 244 

Fremont, General, 206 

Friedenwald, 48, note 



Gage, General, quoted by 
Burke, 70; letter from Wash- 
ington, 80 

Galloway, Joseph, opposed 
Declaration of Independence, 
77 



Garrison, William Lloyd, the 
abuse of power, 163; con- 
ditions under which he did 
his work, 164; relation to 
the leaders, 165, 218; his 
appeal to conscience, 166; 
his printing press in 1861, 
176; forced the issue, 186; 
historic justification, 218, 
note; prophet of slavery, 
240 

Geneva, compact theory, 70 

George the Third, abuse of 
power, 37, 51, 55 ff.; testi- 
mony of English historians, 
38; shaped policy of govern- 
ment, 38; represented in 
Parliament, 40; facetious 
remark, 43; mentioned in 
Declaration, 5 1 ; remark of 
Washington, 62; retrograde 
movement, 74 ff . ; denounced 
as cause of slavery, 122 

Georgia, slavery, 122 

Georgia vs. Chisholm, 148 

Gerry, Elbridge, 120 

Gettysburg Address, 195 ff., 
232 

Gladstone, W. E., tribute to 
Constitution, 94; mental rev- 
olution, 242; mental sim- 
plicity, 246 ff . 

Goodnow, F. J., commerce 
clause in Constitution, 138, 
note 

Grant, Gen. U. S., 210 

Great Charter, asserts right to 
rebel, 55; Blackstone's expo- 
sition, 69; Bill of Rights, 99 

Greeley, Horace, criticises Lin- 
coln, 206 

Green, J. R., 67 

Greenville, George, member of 
Parliamentary group, 26; on 
taxation, 30; expression of 
power, 34; served under 
Tory king, 75 

Guadaloupe involved in 
Treaty of Paris, 23 

Guizot, the theory of govern- 
ment, 27 



270 



Index 



H 

Habeas Corpus, writ of, con- 
troversy over, 202 ff. 

Hamilton, Alexander, member 
of Constitutional Conven- 
tion, 88; suggests need of 
convention, 89 ; compared 
with Washington, 89; writes 
Washington, 91; prepares 
draft of constitution, 92; 
definition of power, 93; 
physical force, 112; joint 
author of Federalist, 116; a 
conservative, 120; argument 
for representative govern- 
ment, 136; at Poughkeepsie, 
145; final interpretation of 
Constitution, 147; adroit 
leader, 188; musty parch- 
ments, 195; compared with 
Lincoln, 196; argument on 
the bank, 223; opposed to 
Jefferson, 225; assisted Wash- 
ington, 228; needed Wash- 
ington, 234; question of 
goodness 244, 246 ff. 

Hamilton, Allan McLane, 228, 
note 

Hancock, John, facetious 
remark, 43; receives Wash- 
ington in Boston, 107 

Hargreaves, James, his inven- 
tion, 146 

Harrington, James, political 
ideas, 69 

Hartford Convention, protest 
against Federal authority, 
148 

Hayne, Robert Y., member of 
National group, 132; debate 
with Webster, 154 ff., 178; 
interprets Jefferson, 155, 
157; differs from Madison, 
157; uses material in Expo- 
sition, 159; studied by Lin- 
coln, 181 

Henry, Patrick, reason for 
not signing Declaration, 46; 
tribute to Washington, 46; 
an American, 64; absent 



from convention of 1787, 86; 
lingers in region of freedom, 
92 ; opposes Constitution ,114; 
views on slavery, 127, 167; 
in relation to Lincoln, 196 
Holt, Joseph, Inaugural group, 

175 
Hooker, Thomas, influence 
upon political institutions, 

74 . 

Hopkinson, Francis, signs 
Declaration, 44; and Samuel 
Adams, 49 

Hugo, Victor, comment on 
Napoleon, 252 

Hume, David, the Court and 
America, 38 

Hunter, General, 206 

Hutchinson, Thomas, the col- 
onies and distance, 61 



I 



Irish House of Lords, its juris- 
diction, 28 

Irving, Washington, influence 
of Washington in Conti- 
nental Congress, 48, note 



J 



Jackson, Andrew, member of 
National group, 132; expres- 
sion of power, 159 ff.; toast 
on Jefferson's birthday, 161; 
issues proclamation, 161, 
178, 181; ready to send 
Federal army into South 
Carolina, 161; his simile of 
bag of meal, 161 ; a reminder, 
175; public opinion, 224; 
democracy, 259 

James River Colony, story of 
Powhatan, 62; cargo of corn, 
64 

Jay, John, did not sign Declara- 
tion^; joint author of Feder- 
alist, 116; resigns as Chief 
of Justice of Supreme Court, 
259 



Index 



271 



Jefferson, Thomas, refers to 
Franklin, 43; signs Declara- 
tion, 45; first draft of Decla- 
ration amended, 53; moral 
life, 68, 244; writings com- 
pared with Washington's 78; 
absent from convention in 
1787, 86; his theories of 
government in 1787, 114, 
note; original draft of Decla- 
ration and slavery, 122; op- 
poses Marshall, 150; quoted 
by Hayne, 155; oath of 
office administered by Mar- 
shall, 175, note; fears about 
Missouri Compromise, 183; 
adroit leader, 188; argument 
on bank, 223; public opinion, 
224; opposed to Hamilton, 
226; simplicity, 245; his 
scrap-book, 252; a democrat, 
257, 259 

Jellinek, Georg, origin of Bill 
of Rights, 71; political in- 
stitutions, 72; distinction 
between English and Ameri- 
can conceptions of freedom, 
100 

Johnson, Samuel, consecrated 
lies, 48, note 



K 



Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 184 

Kentucky, 205 ff. 

Kentucky Resolutions, pro- 
test against Federal author- 
ity, 148; used by Hayne, 155, 
157; interpreted by Calhoun, 
160; argument in 1861, 188 

King, Rufus, member of con- 
vention in 1787, 87; com- 
pared with Washington, 89; 
in convention of Massachu- 
setts, 147; compared with 
Lincoln, 196 

Knox, Gen. Henry, writes 
Washington about conven- 
tion, 91 



Lafayette, Gen., mentioned by 
Jellinek, 71; letter from 
Washington, 129 

Lamar, Justice, strength of 
Northern argument, 192 

Lecky, W. E. H., estimate of 
George the Third, 38; politi- 
cal life of England, 67 

Lee, Gen. Charles, letter to 
Washington, 48, note; com- 
ment on Paine, 164 

Lee, Gen. Robert E., 210 

Lee, Richard Henry, criticises 
the Constitution, 119 

Lewis and Clark, 152 

Lexington, 37 

Lincoln, Abraham, relation to 
Washington assumed, 1 ; ap- 
pearance, 2 ff., 213 ff.; a 
democrat, 3, 257; emanci- 
pation of the slaves, 3, 203; 
how explain the relation, 4ff . ; 
a lawyer, 5 ; a storekeeper, 5 ; 
influence of historic develop- 
ment, 6, 226, 258 ff.; unlike 
Washington, 6, 196, 219, 
222, 224, 227 ff., 241, 257 ff., 
261 ff. ; commanding per- 
sonality of his era, 10, 193, 
220; oath of office, 173, 193, 
200, 205; central figure in 
tableaux, 173 ff. ; views on 
slavery, 174, 216 ff., 238; 
first inaugural, 177, 180 ff., 
196, 198; Carlyle's words, 
178; task one of action, 
178 ff.; letter to Wash- 
burne, 179; influenced by 
the past, 180 ff.; in pres- 
ence of Washington's por- 
trait, 194; his political 
text-book, 194; the old toast, 
195; on the field of Gettys- 
burg, 195 ff.; the Declara- 
tion of Independence, 196, 
258; adroit leadership, 198; 
use of war power, 199 ff. ; 
calling out militia, 201 ; sus- 
pension of writ of Habeas 



2~J2 



Index 



Lincoln, Abraham — Continued 
Corpus, 202; relation to 
Congress, 203 ff.; spirit of 
compromise, 204 ft.; the 
Border States, 205 ff.; use 
of physical force, 208 ; slaves 
as a military asset, 208 ff.; 
his generals, 210; despatch 
to Grant, 210 ff.; his gentle- 
ness, 211; second inaugural, 
212 ff., 251; change in 
thought, 214 ff., 241, 260; 
abuse of power, 215; work 
finished, 218; virile thinker, 
222 ff. ; handling of men, 
224 ff.; Walt Whitman's 
words, 225; use of language, 
226 ff. ; debates with Doug- 
las, 227, 238, 249; Grierson's 
description, 227; analysis of 
his style, 229 ff.; Dante's 
words, 231; Quintilian's dic- 
tum, 231; insistence upon 
the concrete, 232 ff . ; Renan's 
remark, 232; like Washing- 
ton, 232 ff., 234 ff., 237 ff., 
243 ff., 254, 261 ff.; made no 
contribution to theory of 
government, 233; Rous- 
seau's remark, 233; con- 
trolled by prudence, 234 ff.; 
simile of whalers, 236; fami- 
liar with writings of Paine, 
236, note; guided by ex- 
pediency, 237 ff.; not a 
prophet, 238; unfortunate 
speech, 239, note; Words- 
worth's lines, 240; Na- 
poleon's words not applic- 
able, 240; becomes more 
radical, 241; unlike Glad- 
stone, 242; his words on 
expediency, 242 ; steadied by 
goodness, 243 ff.; simplicity, 
245 ff.; sincerity, 246 ff; un- 
selfish devotion, 248 ff; char- 
ity, 250 ff.; faith in God, 252 
ff.; imperial ideal, 254 ff.; 
reinforcing the arch of em- 
pire, 261 ff. 

Locke, John, political ideas, 69 



ff.; protests against repre- 
sentation, 76 
London, City of, 31, 33, 68, 76 
Louisiana, 135, 183, 207 
Lowell, James Russell, criticises 
Lincoln, 206 

M 

MacKenzie, Robert, writes to 
Washington, 78 

McClellan, General, 210 

McCulloch vs. Maryland, 150, 
188 

McLaughlin, A. C, covenant 
idea in government, 70, note; 
speculative aspect of gov- 
ernment, 222, note 

Macaulay, T. B., style com- 
pared with Lincoln's, 229 

Madison, James, member of 
convention of 1787, 88; tak- 
ing notes in convention, 88, 
note; compared with Wash- 
ington, 89; prepared draft 
of constitution, 92 ; aggregate 
sovereignty, 104; joint au- 
thor of Federalist, 116; legis- 
lative power, 119; views on 
slavery, 126, 167; argument 
for representative govern- 
ment, 136; filtration in gov- 
ernment, 143; in State con- 
vention of Virginia, 147; 
divisibility of power, 157; 
denies Calhoun's interpre- 
tation of Virginia Resolu- 
tions, 160; Washington com- 
pletes his work, 234 

Mansfield, Lord, member of 
Parliamentary group, 26; on 
taxation, 30 ff.; on virtual 
representation, 33, 76; ex- 
pression of power, 34; mis- 
taken idea of colonists, 61 

Marburg vs. Madison, 149 

Marshall, John, his career, 149; 
his authority questioned, 
151; his argument used by 
Webster, 157; his decisions, 
178, 187; his interpretation 



Index 



273 



Marshall, John — Continued 
and new conditions, 200; 
jurisdiction of the Court, 259 

Massachusetts, wording of cre- 
dentials, 15; charter re- 
modelled, 36; facetious 
remark of delegate, 43 ; town 
meetings, 101 ; convention to 
ratify Constitution, 114, 146; 
protest against Federal au- 
thority, 148; Webster's eu- 
logy, 156 

Martin vs. Hunters Lessee, 149 

Maryland, commissioners at 
Mt. Vernon, 83; responsible 
for national domain, 97; 
overstocked with slaves, 125; 
in the Civil War, 205 ff. 

Merriam, C. Edward, 117, 
note 

Missouri, 205 ff. 

Missouri Compromise, theory 
at time of adoption, 142, 168, 
216; Jefferson's fears, 183; 
repealed, 184 

Molyneux, William, political 
ideas, 69 

Monroe, James, report on trip 
to the West, 6; letter to 
J eff erson, 92 

Montaigne quoted by Emer- 
son, 9 

Montesquieu, his definition, 
106; a Republic and area, 
136 

Morris, Gouverneur, member 
of convention of 1787, 87; a 
conservative, 1 20 ; opposed to 
slavery, 124; prophecy re- 
garding West, 133; his re- 
mark about the Constitution 

151 

Morris, Robert, member of 
convention of 1787, 87; need 
of power, 105 

Mt. Vernon, 13, 83, 84, 90, 149 

N 

Napoleon, tribute to Paine, 57, 
note; compared with Wel- 

18 



lington, 235; words spoken 
to Gourgaud, 240; question 
of goodness, 244; at Water- 
loo, 252 ; reading Bossuet, 255 

National era, compared with 
other eras, 9, 133, 136, 152, 
172, 177, 180, 219, 261; its 
leaders, 132 ff.; no great 
document, 134; territorial 
expansion, 135 ff.; steam as 
motive power, 137 ff.; in- 
ventions and slavery, 139 ff. ; 
growth of democracy, 142 ff.; 
centrifugal and centripetal 
tendencies, 145 ff.; question 
of final interpretation, 147 
ff.; problem of power, 152; 
answers given in trying to 
solve problem, 153 ff.; end 
of government, 169; era of 
definition, 172, 219; fails to 
meet the situation, 178; 
influence on Civil War era, 
1 79 ; stones in arch of empire 
pointed up, 261 

Navigation Act, no 

Newcastle, Duke of, 67, 68 

New England Confederation, 
and unity, 64 

New Mexico, 184 

New Orleans, 216 

New York, City of, British 
squadron, 47 ; inauguration 
of Washington, 128 

North, Lord, member of group 
of 1765, 26; repeal of Town- 
shend Acts, 36 

O 

Ogden vs. Gibbon, 138 
Oliver, Frederick Scott, 8, 228, 

note 
Ordinance of 1787, 97 
Oregon, 183 
Osborn vs. Bank, 148 



Paine, Thomas, his biogra- 
phers, 57, note; popularity 
of Common Sense, 57; Sam 



274 



Index 



Paine, Thomas — Continued 
Adams tribute, 58; Washing- 
ton impressed, 58, 79, 120; 
the pamphlet an expression 
of thoughts and feelings of 
colonies, 55 ff . ; slavery clause 
in original draft of Declara- 
tion, 86, note; not member of 
Congress, 86, 163; his theory 
of government, 102; Lee's 
remark, 164; simile of the 
whale, 236, note 

Parliament, resolution for re- 
peal of Stamp Act, 24; au- 
thority of, 25, 28 ff., 51; 
representation in, 32 ff., 51, 
76; King's following in, 40; 
not mentioned in Declara- 
tion, 55; custom of receiving 
the King, 129 

Parliamentary era, emergence 
of empire, 8, 15 ff.; experi- 
ments in colonial policy, 19 
ff.; the leaders in the debate, 
25 ff.; central problem, 27; 
constitutional discussion, 27 
ff . ; armed resistance, 37 ; the 
disturbing personality, 37, 
51, 55 ff.; summary of era, 
41 ; compared with eras that 
followed, 50, 52, 95, 184; 
its leaders not acquainted 
with America, 60; prepared 
way for Union, 261 

Paterson, William, member 
of convention of 1787, 87 

Pennsylvania vs. Olmstead, 148 

Petersburg, 210 

Philadelphia, assembling Con- 
gress in 1774, 42 ff.; the city 
in 1787, 84 

Pierce, William, 87, note 

Pinckney, Charles, member of 
convention in 1787, 87; pre- 
pares draft of constitution, 
92; conservative views on 
government, 120; position 
on slavery, 125 

Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth, 
member of convention of 
1787, 87; conservative, 120 



Pitt, William, the constitution, 
24, 27; member of group of 
1765, 25; taxation, 29 ff., 163; 
representations, 33 ff.; ex- 
pression of power, 35; his 
overthrow, 38; condition of 
his return to office, 40; 
tribute to Continental Con- 
gress, 48; Newcastle's ma- 
jority, 67; language com- 
pared with Washington's, 81 

Plymouth, compact theory, 70 

Poughkeepsie, 145 

Powhatan, Indian chief and 
crown, 62 

Pownall, Thomas, member of 
group of 1765, 26; expression 
of power, 35 

Presidential election, 189 

Puritan Reformation, 71, 73, 
75 fl. 

R 

Randolph, Edmund, member 
of Constitutional group, 87 

Randolph, John, member of 
National group, 132; the 
tariff and politics, 159; hat 
on the desk, 169 

Reconstruction Bill, 203 

Repression Acts, 36 

Revolutionary era, compared 
with other eras, 9, 50, 52, 
115, 121, 130, 134, 180, 197, 
219; its leaders, 43 ff.; its 
document, 49 ff.; absence of 
compromise, 52 ff.; use of 
force, 54 ff., 79; its pam- 
phlet, 57 ff.; compared with 
French Revolution, 69: 
origin of its political ideas, 69 
ff.; England of 17th century 
73; summary, 82; constitu 
tions in the States, 98 ff. 
franchise and land, 143 
centrifugal tendency, 145 
piers of arch of empire laid, 
261 

Richmond, 210 

Rousseau, political ideas, 69 ff . 



Index 



275 



Royce, Josiah, rights and 
duties, 248 

Rutledge, Edward, signs Dec- 
laration, 45; contrasted with 
Franklin, 49 



Saint-Gaudens, Augustus, 
statue of Lincoln, 214 

Salem, 64 

Scotch-Irish, compact theory, 
70 

Scott, Gen. Winfield, message 
from Lincoln, 180; writ of 
Habeas Corpus, 202 

Seward, W. H., inaugural group 
176; relation to Lincoln, 225; 
Lincoln's inaugural address, 
232, note 

Shays's Rebellion, Washington 
uneasy, 85 

Shenandoah Valley, 211 

Sheridan, Gen. P. H., Grant's 
despatch, 211 

Sherman, Roger, member of 
group of 1787, 87; views on 
slavery, 124, 127; aristocrat, 
120,257 

Slavery, basis of representa- 
tion, 109, 123; denounced in 
original draft of Declaration, 
122; reason for omission in 
Declaration, 122; Franklin's 
remark, 122; original draft 
of Articles, 122; clause in 
Constitution, 1 23 ; sentiment 
in Constitutional convention 
124 ff., 166; inventions and 
cotton, 139 ff.; Washing- 
ton's mistaken view, 139, 
260; Missouri Compromise, 
141, 183; agitation of Garri- 
son, 164 ff. ; annexation of 
Texas, 1 68 ; rights of petitions, 
168 ff.; statue of Freedom, 
175 ff.; territorial expansion, 
183 ff.; Dred Scott decision, 
174, 184; a sectionalizing 
influence, 185; becomes a 
positive good, 185; political 



organisation, 186; popula- 
tion in Slave States, 187; 
emancipation of slaves, 203; 
slaves a military asset, 208 
ff., 217; first and second 
inaugurals of Lincoln, 213, 
ff., 241 ; earlier views of Lin- 
coln, 174, 216, 238; Fiske's 
statement, 220 

Smith, Adam, colonial policy, 
18 

Smith, J. Allan, 118, note 

Somerset case, 26 

South Carolina, slavery and 
original draft of Dec- 
laration, 122; attitude in 
1787, 125; ordinance of 1832, 
160 ff.; resolution on seces- 
sion, 179, 190 ff 

Spottsylvania, 210 

Stamp Act, introduced 23; 
repealed 24 ff., 36, 51; its 
author, 26; constitutional 
question, 29 ff.; Washing- 
ton's opposition, 65 

Stanton, Edward M., War 
Secretary, 210; Lincoln's re- 
lation to, 225 

State Constitutions, theory of 
written, 98; method of their 
adoption, 98, 100; com- 
pared with English, 99 ff.; 
system of checks and balances 
1 01; distinctive feature of 
Revolution, 101 

Stephens, Alexander H., 
Southern leader, 188 

Stevens, Thaddeus, inaugural 
group, 176 

Story, Joseph, his contribution, 

259 
Sugar Bill, introduced, 23; 

constitutional question, 29 

ff. 
Sumner, Charles, Inaugural 

group, 176 
Sumter, Fort, 198, 210 
Supreme Court, its first chief 

justice, 45; makes as well as 

interprets law, 138; final 

interpretation of Constitu- 



276 



Index 



Supreme Court — Continued 
tion, 147 ff., 157 ff.; Mar- 
shall becomes chief justice, 

149 ff., 259; Jefferson uneasy 

150 ff.; Taney administers 
oath, 173; the keystone in 
the arch, 174; a justice writes 
in retrospect, 192; begin- 
nings, 258 



Taney, Roger B., Inaugural 
group, 173 ff., 213; his deci- 
sions, 174, 178; writ of 
Habeas Corpus, 202 ; his con- 
tribution, 259 

Tariff Acts, 159 ff. 

Taylor, Hannis, English con- 
stitution, 99 

Tennessee, 134, 206 

Tennyson, Alfred, lines on 
Wellington, 235 

Texas, 168, 183 

Thackeray, W. M ., obstinacy of 
king, 38 

Toombs, Robert, Southern 
leader, 188 

Tory Party, divine right of 
kings, 39, 56; return to 
power, 74 ff. 

Townshend, Charles, member 
of Parliamentary group, 26; 
bill bearing his name, 36, 51 ; 
served under Tory king, 75 

Treaty of Paris, beginning of 
British Empire, 16; effect 
upon colonies, 23, 59; a 
change in colonial policy, 95 

Treaty of 1783, created 
demand for empire, 95 

Tubman, Harriet, description 
of war, 211 

Turgot, colonies as allies, 41; 
answered by John Adams, 
118 

Tyler, Moses Coit, colonists 
and mother country, 62; 
mistaken parallelism, 192, 
note 



Utah, 184 



Virginia, wording of its creden- 
tials, 12; referred to by 
Mansfield, 31; facetious re- 
mark of its delegate, 43; 
story of Indian chief, 62; 
commissioners in conference, 
83; convention to ratify 
constitution, 114, 146; over- 
stocked with slaves, 125; 
delegates against slavery, 
126; secession, 207 

Virginia Resolutions, 148, 160, 
188 

W 

Wade, B. F., 176 

Walpole, Horace, 67 

Walpole, Robert, English lead- 
er, 68; common sense, 235; 
question of goodness, 68, 244 

Washburn, Senator, 179 

Washington, George, relation 
to Lincoln assumed, 1; ap- 
pearance, 2 ff., 47; an 
aristocrat, 3, 257; the rela- 
tion explained, 4 ff.; coun- 
try gentleman, 4, 90, 222; 
military career, 5, 17, 46 ff., 
77» 79> 88 » 9 1 . 222, 2 4i; a * 
headwaters of stream, 6, 225, 
258; commanding personal- 
ity, 10, 46, 48, 82, 88, 92, 
102, 133, 220; at Williams- 
burg, 12, 65; recognised fact 
of empire, 13 ff.; conversa- 
tion with Boucher, 14; did 
not sign Declaration, 46 ff.; 
speech in Congress, 47; un- 
selfish devotion, 47, 65, 248 
ff.; General Lee's letter, 48, 
note; Paine's Common Sense, 
58, 79, 120; embodiment of 



Index 



277 



Washington, George — Cont'd 
colonial conditions, 59 ff.; 
remark concerning King 
George, 62 ; letter to London 
agent, 65; faith in God, 69, 
72, 252 ff.; views on political 
freedom, 77 ff., 80; writings 
compared with those of 
Revolutionary leaders, 78 ; 
letter to Robert MacKenzie, 
78; language compared with 
that of Pitt and Camden, 81 
ff.; not a prophet, 83, 145, 
238; at Philadelphia in 1787, 
84 ff., 249; combustibles in 
the States, 85 ; insistence 
upon the concrete, 85, 232 ff ; 
president of convention, 
88, 241, 256; position in 
1787, 89 ff., 100 ff. ; his 
portrait, 90, note; influence 
of recent history, 95 ff.; 
writes David Stuart, 102; 
at Newburgh, 105 ; toast 
at camp-fire, 106; visits 
Boston as President, 107; 
spirit of compromise, no; 
coercion needed, 112; 
Patrick Henry's question, 
1 14; confidence in the people, 
120; attitude following con- 
vention, 120; position on 
slavery, 125 ff., 139, 167, 
218, 260; first inauguration, 
128 ff. ; letter to Lafayette, 
129; Fisher Ames's descrip- 
tion, 131, note; aristocracy 
of land, 143; and of contro- 
versy, 146; in the early 
dawn, 172; Supreme Court, 
174; in the mind of Lincoln, 
181, 194; Declaration and 
Constitution, 196; a radical 
cure, 200; not argumentative 
in thinking, 78, 80, 223; not 
pre-eminently successful in 
handling men, 224 ff.; use of 
language, 226 ff.; Maclay's 
description, 227; Hamilton's 
assistance, 228; not an 
original thinker, 233; con- 



trolled by prudence, 234 
ff.; guided by expediency, 
237 ff.; becomes conserva- 
tive, 240; steadied by good- 
ness, 243 ff.; simplicity, 245 
ff . ; sincerity, 246 ff . ; charity, 
250 ff . ; imperial ideal, 254 ff. ; 
power divisible, 259; build- 
ing the arch of empire, 261 ff. 

Webster, Daniel, member of 
National group, 132; letter 
to Clay, 151, note; reply to 
Senator Bell, 153; lodgment 
of power, 153; debate with 
Hayne, 154 ft., 181; Carlyle's 
description, 156, note; differs 
from Madison and agrees 
with Marshall, 157; re- 
sponds to old toast, 158; 
debates with Calhoun, 169, 
178, 187; last days, 179; 
furnishes argument for 1861, 
190, 193; relation to Lincoln, 
234; question of goodness, 
244 

Webster, Pelatiah, prepared 
outline of government, 89; 
relation to Washington, 234 

Wellington, Duke of, lines of 
Tennyson, 235 

West Florida, 135 

Whig Party, against democ- 
racy, 39, 75; against un- 
limited power of King 75 

Whitman, Walt, 225 

Whitney, Eli, his invention, 
141 

Wilderness, the, 210 

Wilkes, John, 68 

Williams, Roger, political liber- 
ty, 7i 

Williamsburg, 12 

Wilson Henry, inaugural 
group, 176 

Wilson, James, member of 
convention of 1787, 87; 
compared with Washington, 
89; story of Pope, 93; quotes 
Montesquieu, 106 ; com- 
promise, 109; pyramid of 
government, 144; end of 



278 



Index 



Wilson, James — Continued 
government, 171 ; original 
thinker, 233; relation to 
Washington, 234; power in- 
divisible, 259 

Witherspoon, John, signs 
Declaration, 44 



Wolfe, General James, at Que- 
bec, 16 

Wythe, George, signs Decla- 
ration, 45 

Y 

Yorktown, 12 



Jl Selection from, the 
Catalogue of 

C. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 



Complete Catalogue sent 
on application 



Abraham Lincoln 

The People's Leader in the Struggle for National 
Existence 



By George Haven Putnam, Litt.D. 

Author of " Books and Their Makers in the Middle Ages," " The 
Censorship of the Church," etc. 

With frontispiece reproduced in photogravure 
from the portrait by Marshall. 

Crown 8vo. $1.25 net. (By mail, $1.40) 

The monograph presents the main events in the career 
of the people's leader. The development of Lincoln's 
character and the growth of his powers from boyhood 
through his work at the Bar, and as a leader in the political 
contests that preceded the war for the restriction of slavery, 
and his final service to the country as War President and 
commander-in-chief of its forces, are recorded in outline, 
but with such measure of comprehensiveness as serves to 
make the picture and record practically complete. 

From Robert T. Lincoln 

" I shall preserve this volume asone of themosttreasured 
of those relating to my father. . . . Your narrative is full 
of interest and of freshness and I have read it throughout 
with the greatest pleasure." 

From the New York Sun 

" An admirable piece of work that constitutes a distinctive 
addition to the increasing mass of Lincoln literature." 

From the Cleveland Leader 

" A comprehensive study of the life and character of 
Lincoln, presented in a direct and attractive manner, and 
with decided charm of style. . . . One of the most valuable 
books that has yet been brought into print concerning 
the great Captain." 

New York G. P. Putnam's Sons London 



" The best summary at present available of the 
political history of the United States." 

Frank H. Hodder, Professor of American History in the 
University of Kansas. 



American Political History 

1763=1876 
By Alexander Johnston 

Edited and Supplemented by 

James Albert Woodburn 

Professor of History and Political Science, Indiana Uni 

versity; Author of " The American Republic," 

" Political Parties and Party Problems 

in the United States," etc. 

In two parts, each complete in itself and ' indexed y Ocatv». 
Each, net $2.00 

x. The Revolution, the Constitution, and the Growth 
of Nationality. 1 763-1 832. 

3. The Slavery Controversy, Secession, Civil War, 
and Reconstruction. 1820-1876. 

These volumes present the principal features in the political history 
of the United States from the opening of the American Revolution to 
the close of the era of the Reconstruction. They give in more con- 
venient form the series of articles on "American Political History " con- 
tributed to Lalor's "Cyclopedia of Political Science, Political Economy, 
and Political History," by the late Professor Alexander Johnston. 

** These essays, covering the whole field of the political history of the 
United States, have a continuity and unity of purpose ; introduced, 
urranged and supplemented as they have been by Professor Woodburn 
(who contributes a very necessary chapter on the Monroe Doctrine) they 

§ resent a complete and well-balanced history of the politics of the United 
ta.tes."—f/art/i>rd Courant. 



G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
New York London 



" / hare known nearly all the marked men of my time, but I 
have never known one equal to Hamilton, " — Talleyrand. 



Alexander Hamilton 

AN ESSAY ON AMERICAN UNION 

By FREDERICK SCOTT OLIVER 

Popular Edition, j6mo, with Portrait. Cloth, net, 73 cents. 

Limp Leather, net, $1.23. Library Edition, 8vo, with 

6 Portraits and a Map, net, $2.30 

" Adequately supplies a real want in political history. . . . 
A living portrait of the man himself is vigorously drawn in the 
midst of the historical and political chapters." — Frederick 
Harrison in London Tribune. 

A searching study and masterly presentment of 
the struggles of that critical period in American 
history which — thanks largely to the influence of 
Hamilton's potent personality — ended in a firm and 
enduring union of States which long threatened to 
remain jealous and discordant. 

It presents also a striking and authentic portrait \ 
of Hamilton the man; it brings us to a right under- ij 
standing of him as one of the most illustrious statesmen 3 
of ancient or modern times ; it gives a just conception j 
of the magnitude and solidity of his achievement ; it f 
surrounds him with his friends and enemies ; and it I 
sets him off against a panoramic background that 
could have been painted only by one who combined t 
the artist's sense for the significant feature with an ' 
encyclopedic knowledge of the political history of the j 
last quarter of the eighteenth and the opening vears 
of the nineteenth century. 



Q. P. PUTNAM'S S0N5 

New York London 



American Orations 

FROM THE COLONIAL PERIOD 
TO THE PRESENT TIME 



Selected as specimens of eloquence, and with 
special reference to their value in throwing light 
upon the more important epochs and issues of 
American history. 

Edited, with introductions and notes, by the 
late Alexander Johnston, Professor of Juris- 
prudence in the College of New Jersey. 

Re-edited, with new material and historical 
notes, by James A. Woodburn, Professor of 
American History and Politics in Indiana Uni- 
versity. 

FOUR VOLUMES, 

EACH COMPLETE IN ITSELF AND SOLD SEPARATELY 

Crown octavo, gilt tops, per volume, $1.25 
Set, four volumes, in a box . . 5.00 
Half calf, extra ..... zo.oo 

Series I. Colonialism — Constitutional Govern- 
ment — The Rise of Democracy — The Rise 
of Nationality. 

Series II. The Anti-Slavery Struggle. 

Series HI. The Anti-Slavery Struggle (Contin- 
ued) — Secession. 

Series IV. Civil War and Reconstruction — 
Free Trade and Protection — Finance and 
Civil-Service Reform. 

• Regarded merely as studies in language, these orations contain some 
of the most eloquent and persuasive speeches in the English tongue. But 
more than this, the present collection has a permanent historical value 
which can hardly be overestimated. The very spirit of the times is pre- 
served in these utterances; and, presented in this cogent form, history in 
a peculiar sense repeats itself to the reader, who feels the impulse of past 
•rents and the vitality of great principles behind them." — School Journal. 

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
New York London 



CGI 4 1912 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



II II I II 
II 

II III' II Hill, 




011 461 267 4 



